A while ago I came across an article on cracked.com (hilarious humor website. if you like sarcasm, check it.) titled:
5 Things Nobody Tells You About Being Poor
Despite me laughing out loud at the sarcastic humor in said article, ALL FIVE THINGS WERE TRUE. And it got me to thinking: we're always talking about how rich people should help those who are "less fortunate" by donating time to shelters and soup kitchens, items to food banks and churches, and money to charities and foundations.
But what about the people (and I count myself among them) who are too "rich" for food banks but live paycheck to paycheck? Who helps them?
This is what the cracked article was mainly about in many ways. The concept of "the poor" has long been conflated with the image of "the homeless". And while we should help those who are homeless, the majority of the poor are not. They eat (perhaps not 3 square meals a day) and wear clean clothes and work steady jobs. They are not slackers or beggars. They are not homeless and destitute. They are POOR. Sometimes because of bad decisions. Always because of circumstance. And often "poor" is not an adjective that describes a single family or a neighboorhood. It more often qualifies GENERATIONS. In this country, you can honestly (statistically) say that if you were born poor, there's a good chance that you will stay poor... and so will your children.
Now I'm not saying that upward mobility doesn't happen (I'm sure hoping that I will be proof of that one day soon--- and in some ways I already am), but I think it's about time that we stop what I like to call adjectivizing people (when those who are less fortunate become THE "less-fortunate" or like when those who come into the country illegally become "illegals") as a way to distance ourselves. We need to realize that WE are "the poor" and then do something about it.
We can't all be upper-middle class, rich or billionaires, but I believe it is possible for every single person, family, and neighborhood to live above the poverty line, which for 2011 was a $22,350 for a family of four.
Politicians? Let's start with that, k?
Showing posts with label thedeepstuff. Show all posts
Showing posts with label thedeepstuff. Show all posts
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Kenny
I saw him once. Well, to say it was once
would neither be accurate nor true.
I saw him many times, across from me
but only for that season. I wondered
about him; who he was and where he was
from. I made up stories in my head to
pass the time, lonely time, when I was sad.
I wonder: did I sit there on purpose?
Did I know "he" was what I needed then?
When I was sad and he was there and I
could dream? Create a fiction in my mind?
Perfection imagined and therefore safe.
He helped me. I know, because I made it.
I passed. And I did not cry. Not even once.
would neither be accurate nor true.
I saw him many times, across from me
but only for that season. I wondered
about him; who he was and where he was
from. I made up stories in my head to
pass the time, lonely time, when I was sad.
I wonder: did I sit there on purpose?
Did I know "he" was what I needed then?
When I was sad and he was there and I
could dream? Create a fiction in my mind?
Perfection imagined and therefore safe.
He helped me. I know, because I made it.
I passed. And I did not cry. Not even once.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Reverie
Sometimes
when I close my eyes and I drift off
to that faraway place I dream of
white silk and blue satin,
of horses,
of champagne flutes teetering on haystacks,
and photographs in sun-streaked autumn.
Of slobbery dog kisses and
the need for front-wheel drive and riding lawnmowers.
And fresh, wet earth and cool, clean air,
And more than enough space to think.
Sometimes,
when I close my eyes and I drift off
to that faraway place I dream of
baby‘s breath and honeysuckle,
of sunlight and rain,
fall and spring,
and grinning until my cheeks hurt.
Mostly though, it seems
I dream of dreams.
when I close my eyes and I drift off
to that faraway place I dream of
white silk and blue satin,
of horses,
of champagne flutes teetering on haystacks,
and photographs in sun-streaked autumn.
Of slobbery dog kisses and
the need for front-wheel drive and riding lawnmowers.
And fresh, wet earth and cool, clean air,
And more than enough space to think.
Sometimes,
when I close my eyes and I drift off
to that faraway place I dream of
baby‘s breath and honeysuckle,
of sunlight and rain,
fall and spring,
and grinning until my cheeks hurt.
Mostly though, it seems
I dream of dreams.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
What Part of My Body Do I Love the Most?
So this is a tough one.
Not because I can't think of a part of my body I like--- I pretty much think my body's hott stuff!--- but because I honestly don't think about my body all that much. I mean sometimes I wish my stomach was flatter, or when I'm in a good dress, I smile at myself in the mirror, but that's about it. I don't know if that's because I have good self-esteem or better things to worry about. Probably both, lol.
But to answer LRob's question (from last post's comments), I will say that, in terms of what part of my body I like the most, there is a clear frontrunner:
the small of my back.
My lower back has this ridiculous arch?/curve?/convex section right above my derriere and I love it! (When I try on dresses, it is somewhat annoying because seldom do they fit correctly in that area, but then, cute jackets are my back's best friend, so it evens out, lol. )
I'm not quite sure why I like it so much, but I will say that it's the one part of my body I never complain about, have never been embarrassed over, or ever been made to feel ashamed about. And for a woman to feel that she has even one part of her body that is simply right, JUST THE WAY IT IS, is pretty freaking remarkable.
Do any of you have a favorite part of your body? Is it the small of your back too? :)
If you're up for it, share your answer in the comment section; I'd love to hear what you guys think! And if you have more questions for me, ask away!
Not because I can't think of a part of my body I like--- I pretty much think my body's hott stuff!--- but because I honestly don't think about my body all that much. I mean sometimes I wish my stomach was flatter, or when I'm in a good dress, I smile at myself in the mirror, but that's about it. I don't know if that's because I have good self-esteem or better things to worry about. Probably both, lol.
But to answer LRob's question (from last post's comments), I will say that, in terms of what part of my body I like the most, there is a clear frontrunner:
the small of my back.
My lower back has this ridiculous arch?/curve?/convex section right above my derriere and I love it! (When I try on dresses, it is somewhat annoying because seldom do they fit correctly in that area, but then, cute jackets are my back's best friend, so it evens out, lol. )
I'm not quite sure why I like it so much, but I will say that it's the one part of my body I never complain about, have never been embarrassed over, or ever been made to feel ashamed about. And for a woman to feel that she has even one part of her body that is simply right, JUST THE WAY IT IS, is pretty freaking remarkable.
Do any of you have a favorite part of your body? Is it the small of your back too? :)
If you're up for it, share your answer in the comment section; I'd love to hear what you guys think! And if you have more questions for me, ask away!
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
READ IT.
So I've been getting The Huffington Post Daily Brief in my inbox since before I knew it was cool.
Some stuff I just skip over either because I don't have time to read it or already read a bunch of articles about the topic, but sometimes I break down read all of the emails that have collected in my inbox (yes, I do have a special Politics inbox-- I'm a nerd, what can I tell ya?) and really look at them for content if not a similar opinion.
Yesterday? (Or some other day this week!) I found an article which pretty much sums up the way I feel about money, opportunity and people when those three words are found in the same conversation.
Kelli Goff, whose op-ed pieces I find quite fascinating, wrote an article entitled,
"Gwyneth Paltrow is Right. We're All Jealous (of her and George W. Bush)."
which is pretty much fan-frickin'-tastic.
Her claim is this: We understand that some people are born into privilege and some aren't. We accept that. It's a fact of life. But what really get our goad is when a person born into privilege A) doesn't realize it and B) further ignores his privilege by defining his success as an achievement which came solely from his own hard work.
NOTE: It's important to define the two major words at work in this article.
Privilege: a right, immunity or benefit enjoyed by a person beyond the advantages of most.
Success: the attainment of wealth, position, honors, or the like.
The reason for this note is that often people get the two confused in conversations like these, i.e. proponents of the "Don't hate; you're just jealous" mentality.
BACK TO IT.
Goff writes, it better than I do:
Well if your last name is Bush (or McCain or Kennedy for that matter) you don't need affirmative action programs, or Pell grants for college or an extension of unemployment benefits if you find yourself out of work, and your kids won't either. Why? Because you had the privilege of being born into privilege. And this is ultimately the issue. People should not be punished for being privileged. They can't help that anymore than the rest of us can help NOT being born into privilege. But it would be nice if they would extend the rest of us the courtesy of acknowledging their privilege, and not simply pretend that their success is built solely on a combination of hard work and chutzpah. But it seems like increasingly all we get to hear -- from members of Congress and now Ms. Paltrow -- is that if we're just a bit more disciplined and willing to work a little bit harder, we can achieve the same Dream as the privileged classes."
Now, isn't that just AWESOME? I love when people tell it like it is.
:) Love!
Some stuff I just skip over either because I don't have time to read it or already read a bunch of articles about the topic, but sometimes I break down read all of the emails that have collected in my inbox (yes, I do have a special Politics inbox-- I'm a nerd, what can I tell ya?) and really look at them for content if not a similar opinion.
Yesterday? (Or some other day this week!) I found an article which pretty much sums up the way I feel about money, opportunity and people when those three words are found in the same conversation.
Kelli Goff, whose op-ed pieces I find quite fascinating, wrote an article entitled,
"Gwyneth Paltrow is Right. We're All Jealous (of her and George W. Bush)."
which is pretty much fan-frickin'-tastic.
Her claim is this: We understand that some people are born into privilege and some aren't. We accept that. It's a fact of life. But what really get our goad is when a person born into privilege A) doesn't realize it and B) further ignores his privilege by defining his success as an achievement which came solely from his own hard work.
NOTE: It's important to define the two major words at work in this article.
Privilege: a right, immunity or benefit enjoyed by a person beyond the advantages of most.
Success: the attainment of wealth, position, honors, or the like.
The reason for this note is that often people get the two confused in conversations like these, i.e. proponents of the "Don't hate; you're just jealous" mentality.
BACK TO IT.
Goff writes, it better than I do:
Well if your last name is Bush (or McCain or Kennedy for that matter) you don't need affirmative action programs, or Pell grants for college or an extension of unemployment benefits if you find yourself out of work, and your kids won't either. Why? Because you had the privilege of being born into privilege. And this is ultimately the issue. People should not be punished for being privileged. They can't help that anymore than the rest of us can help NOT being born into privilege. But it would be nice if they would extend the rest of us the courtesy of acknowledging their privilege, and not simply pretend that their success is built solely on a combination of hard work and chutzpah. But it seems like increasingly all we get to hear -- from members of Congress and now Ms. Paltrow -- is that if we're just a bit more disciplined and willing to work a little bit harder, we can achieve the same Dream as the privileged classes."
Now, isn't that just AWESOME? I love when people tell it like it is.
:) Love!
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Untitled (The Battle Against Christianity or This is me rambling/hashing out frustration.)
(The reason why this post was originally untitled is because at the beginning of writing it, I didn't quite know what to say about the following matter.)
Christians are discriminated against/looked down upon.
Yes, I said it. I took off the PC gag and said boldly what others, even some Christians themselves, are reluctant/afraid to say. And I'll say it again.
Christians are looked down upon in society.
Now, the popular (conceived) consensus is that Christians have it made, that the United States continues to run blatantly on Christian values, and that the majority of Americans are Christian and therefore cannot possible discriminate against its own kind. These things in theory are true. The founding fathers did set up a government which had roots in the Christian faith (life, liberty, happiness and all that jazz). According to self-reporting stats, most Americans do identify with some form of Christianity, whether Catholic or Protestant, Evangelical or Methodist.
But lately there has been a distinct shift to the religion of humanism, as I like to call it. [I believe humanism is definitely a religion. And I contrast it sharply with Atheism, which shuns and the idea of God--and a good number of atheists also shun those who believe in God(s).] This shift does bother me on a spiritual level. It does in fact pain me to see people who were once in fear and awe of God, those who once claimed to know the Lord, turn their backs on Him and adopt this new humanist perspective and ultimately put their faith in the once place they shouldn't, the one place God tells them not to-- in man. However, the new religious adherents, humanists, I can understand. These people do not despise the idea of God (the idea of humanism and other traditional religious forms is indeed compatible), they only wish that humans would "step up to the plate." I often wish the same.
I being up the point about Humanism and Humanists to be in direct contrast to Atheism and Atheists, as it has been conceived and as it is lived out in American society. So often Christianity and Atheism are seen at two ends of the spectrum. This is not accidental; Christianity is often seen as "the Big Bad" in modern society, the one religion which oppresses all the others. I disagree. Every religion, with perhaps the exception of Bahi, makes some sort of truth claim, whether it be that their one monotheism is the Truth, or that the earth is the body and soul of the Brahman or primordial man.
Why then is Christianity's truth claim, in particular, treated so harshly?
I cannot answer that question for sure, but my best guess is this: society's conception that Christianity permeates every aspect of our lives, from the religious to the secular, has made us run in the opposite direction of Christianity.
For those who are Christian, this should come as no surprise: we have been biblically warned that our lives will be neither easy nor accepted. But for those who are not, my questions are these: Why treat us like lepers? Are we not human too? Do we not also care for the fate of the physical world, in addition to the spiritual?
There is a place in this world, for both the religious and non-religious alike. While the Christian faith makes its truth claims about one's spiritual soul, it makes other claims too, namely ones about the dignity of persons. Are some of these not the same dignities for which humanists, Atheists, Jews and other religions also fight?
* The following is a response to a blog post I read about one persons "drift towards godlessness" (more aptly called secular humanism!) because of the fallacy of the church and the realization that God is not needed.
I realize that some people, especially those who regard themselves as "post-Christian," the Church (with a capital "C" - meaning the body of Christian believers as a whole) has been a constant source of pain. I am sorry for that-- truly. But it is unfair to maximize that pain onto others' experiences. Your drift towards godlessness is your own, shaped by your own experiences. Don't apply those experiences to the whole of Christianity. And it is unfair to destroy Christianity for one's own ends, to use the failings of the institution to justify to your "Post-Christian" self your reason for becoming, something different. Your negative experiences are the result of people failing you, not Christ. And if the sentence above rings hollow for some, then you do have a problem with Christianity--as religion in and of itself-- and that's fine. But please don't take it out on Christians themselves. Don't discriminate against us as a group. Do not "look on the church with disgust" and don't "pity" us, because we don't pity you.
In my opinion, you deserve as much respect and dignity as any other human being, things that you seem very often, not to afford specifically to Christians.
Christians are discriminated against/looked down upon.
Yes, I said it. I took off the PC gag and said boldly what others, even some Christians themselves, are reluctant/afraid to say. And I'll say it again.
Christians are looked down upon in society.
Now, the popular (conceived) consensus is that Christians have it made, that the United States continues to run blatantly on Christian values, and that the majority of Americans are Christian and therefore cannot possible discriminate against its own kind. These things in theory are true. The founding fathers did set up a government which had roots in the Christian faith (life, liberty, happiness and all that jazz). According to self-reporting stats, most Americans do identify with some form of Christianity, whether Catholic or Protestant, Evangelical or Methodist.
But lately there has been a distinct shift to the religion of humanism, as I like to call it. [I believe humanism is definitely a religion. And I contrast it sharply with Atheism, which shuns and the idea of God--and a good number of atheists also shun those who believe in God(s).] This shift does bother me on a spiritual level. It does in fact pain me to see people who were once in fear and awe of God, those who once claimed to know the Lord, turn their backs on Him and adopt this new humanist perspective and ultimately put their faith in the once place they shouldn't, the one place God tells them not to-- in man. However, the new religious adherents, humanists, I can understand. These people do not despise the idea of God (the idea of humanism and other traditional religious forms is indeed compatible), they only wish that humans would "step up to the plate." I often wish the same.
I being up the point about Humanism and Humanists to be in direct contrast to Atheism and Atheists, as it has been conceived and as it is lived out in American society. So often Christianity and Atheism are seen at two ends of the spectrum. This is not accidental; Christianity is often seen as "the Big Bad" in modern society, the one religion which oppresses all the others. I disagree. Every religion, with perhaps the exception of Bahi, makes some sort of truth claim, whether it be that their one monotheism is the Truth, or that the earth is the body and soul of the Brahman or primordial man.
Why then is Christianity's truth claim, in particular, treated so harshly?
I cannot answer that question for sure, but my best guess is this: society's conception that Christianity permeates every aspect of our lives, from the religious to the secular, has made us run in the opposite direction of Christianity.
For those who are Christian, this should come as no surprise: we have been biblically warned that our lives will be neither easy nor accepted. But for those who are not, my questions are these: Why treat us like lepers? Are we not human too? Do we not also care for the fate of the physical world, in addition to the spiritual?
There is a place in this world, for both the religious and non-religious alike. While the Christian faith makes its truth claims about one's spiritual soul, it makes other claims too, namely ones about the dignity of persons. Are some of these not the same dignities for which humanists, Atheists, Jews and other religions also fight?
* The following is a response to a blog post I read about one persons "drift towards godlessness" (more aptly called secular humanism!) because of the fallacy of the church and the realization that God is not needed.
I realize that some people, especially those who regard themselves as "post-Christian," the Church (with a capital "C" - meaning the body of Christian believers as a whole) has been a constant source of pain. I am sorry for that-- truly. But it is unfair to maximize that pain onto others' experiences. Your drift towards godlessness is your own, shaped by your own experiences. Don't apply those experiences to the whole of Christianity. And it is unfair to destroy Christianity for one's own ends, to use the failings of the institution to justify to your "Post-Christian" self your reason for becoming, something different. Your negative experiences are the result of people failing you, not Christ. And if the sentence above rings hollow for some, then you do have a problem with Christianity--as religion in and of itself-- and that's fine. But please don't take it out on Christians themselves. Don't discriminate against us as a group. Do not "look on the church with disgust" and don't "pity" us, because we don't pity you.
In my opinion, you deserve as much respect and dignity as any other human being, things that you seem very often, not to afford specifically to Christians.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Conflicting Views of Self-Perception: Makes me Sound Crazy, Doesn't It?
Facebook stalking people tonight has led me to reflect on how I view myself. Who am I , really? I know the important and "given" things, like God loves me, I'm black, also a 21 year-old college student (SENIOR!).
Those facts though, with the exception of the first one, are pretty boring. Unfortunately, I can't think of who I am besides those banal things I listed above. Those things make up my actual self. Boo Hoo :(
My ideal self, however, is awesome. She's trendy, a fashion-forward diva who's down to earth (oxymoronic, I know, but somehow my ideal self makes it work). Her hair, make-up, nails--flawless. She's got a sweet job, an "oldie, but goodie" car that runs, a steady boyfriend and about 100 pairs of super cool shoes. She's a great cook, a certified whiz in the kitchen, and her favorite drink is apple juice. [Other kind? Cosmopolitan :)] She's beautiful, sexy and sophisticated, sassy and shy. She's an un-intimidated, speak-her-mind, kinda gal. To sum it up in one word, she's awesome.
Now can she exist? Can ideal self become actual self? I'm in no way harping on myself to become someone I'm not or don't want to be. I'm pretty happy with myself and I don't think that being my ideal self will take away all my problems.But I can't help but wonder what it would be like to be her, just for one day. Would life be better? I don't think so. But it would be more interesting, which is all I am hoping for in my boring life.
Those facts though, with the exception of the first one, are pretty boring. Unfortunately, I can't think of who I am besides those banal things I listed above. Those things make up my actual self. Boo Hoo :(
My ideal self, however, is awesome. She's trendy, a fashion-forward diva who's down to earth (oxymoronic, I know, but somehow my ideal self makes it work). Her hair, make-up, nails--flawless. She's got a sweet job, an "oldie, but goodie" car that runs, a steady boyfriend and about 100 pairs of super cool shoes. She's a great cook, a certified whiz in the kitchen, and her favorite drink is apple juice. [Other kind? Cosmopolitan :)] She's beautiful, sexy and sophisticated, sassy and shy. She's an un-intimidated, speak-her-mind, kinda gal. To sum it up in one word, she's awesome.
Now can she exist? Can ideal self become actual self? I'm in no way harping on myself to become someone I'm not or don't want to be. I'm pretty happy with myself and I don't think that being my ideal self will take away all my problems.But I can't help but wonder what it would be like to be her, just for one day. Would life be better? I don't think so. But it would be more interesting, which is all I am hoping for in my boring life.
Frogs and Apes: Representations of Blackness, Part One
I will admit that sometimes this blog seems to me a bit inconsequential. I doubt that many people read it and those who do, know me and all about my life anyway. However, sometimes I blog about things wholly outside of myself (well as much as can be done) and hope that people will be informed and/or inspired to reflect on what I've written. So here goes.
This week I have seen at least two movies that deal with representations of blackness: The Princess (2009) and the Frog and Planet of the Apes (2001). Both of these movies, whether subtly or deliberately, engaged in conversation about race and race relations, however it took me by surprise that the movie about which I held the most hope for commenting positively about blackness ended up being the most disappointing. Here's why.
"The film, which began production under the working title The Frog Princess, is an American fairy tale, Broadway-style musical set in the French Quater of New Orleans at the height of the Roaring Twenties. A prince named Naveen (Bruno Campos) from the land of Maldonia is transformed into a frog by the evil scheming voodoo magician Dr. Facilier (Keith David). The frog prince mistakes a girl named Tiana (Anika Noni Rose) for a princess and has her kiss him to break the spell. The kiss does not break the spell, but instead turns Tiana into a frog as well. Together, the two of them must reach the good voodoo queen of the deepest, darkest part of the Bayou, Mama Odie (Jenifer Lewis), while befriending a trumpet-playing alligator Louis (Michael-Leon Wooley) and a hopelessly romantic Cajun firefly named Ray (Jim Cummings) along the way." (Wikipedia)
The Princess and the Frog seems an innocent enough movie. The main character, Tiana, is a hard working waitress who dreams of owning her own restaurant, a dream passed down by her father who died before it could be realized. However, the beginning of the movie, literally the first two minutes showed that this was not a movie by which long held beliefs about racial stereotypes would be challenged.
The opening scene reveals two little girls, one white and one black, listening intently as a black women reads them a story. She's accomplishing two tasks at once; she turns the pages even as she sews the little pink princess dress. This women is Eudora, the main character's mother who works as a seamstress for "Big Daddy" La Beouff, the wealthiest man in New Orleans. As she and Tiana board the bus for home after a long days work, the houses switch from styles grand and glorious to crumbling shacks. Years pass and we learn that as a young women Tiana works two waitress jobs and saves money so that she can open "Tiana's Place." (The viewer can already see that invisible "a" between the "P" and "l" when she, as all Princesses do, gets the happily ever after.) Lottie, who has heard that Prince Naveen from Maldonia is coming, hires Tiana to make her famous dessert and serve it at her impromptu ball, to help her win the prince's heart. Prince Naveen has come to win a rich lady's heart so that he may continue to play his music and "loaf,"but gets caught up in the Shadow Man's tricks and is turned into a frog while his valet masquerades as him so that they can split the money. It is at
I explain this in depth because all these scenes happen within the first half-hour of the movie and are the most problematic. First, the storyline is in no way based on the book, The Frog Princess or even the folktale "The Princess and the Frog. Tiana (whose name was supposed to be Maddy, but Disney quickly changed the name to something less "slave-like" to avoid controversy) is a waitress, not a princess. In the other two works, the Princess is a princess at the beginning of the story. I would have rather they left the title, the Frog Princess; it would have been less misleading. However, this can be overlooked since in other Disney stories, the girl starts out as little more than a nobody too.
However, the story is set in "real life"New Orleans. While I appreciate Disney's attempt to draw in history and place the story within a black context, why can't the black princess live in a land "far, far away"? The critics quoted by Wikipedia (who speak nothing of the controversy surrounding the movie) hail the movie as a Disney movie much like the old classics, but I disagree. I was expecting something more like a black Cinderella, but there were too many changes in the stock storyline for me to see it as anything but platitude.
Another problematic aspect is the voodoo aspect of the movie. This religion is most terribly represented. Too the movie makes it seem as if all black people in New Orleans believe and participate in this religion. One could argue that the focus of the movie blends in well with the settings history and culture--that New Orleans is a place where voodoo is practiced-- but even that argument fails because Princess movies aren't supposed to be specific (makes it harder for others to relate) but broad-cultured.
Lastly, there are three most devastating aspects which placed this movie forever into the "reject" pile. The first is that, for the most part, all the black people in this movie are the same color. HIGHLY problematic. Even allowing for the "sun" in New Orleans, there are ranges in color. Tied to this complaint is that the main character's skin tone changes. She is made to appear darker in her visions of the restaurant (perhaps to provide more contrast with her white dress). Apart from one mixed girl I knew in high school, people generally stay the same color from day to day (barring tanning of course). Secondly, the other black characters in this movie were portrayed negatively-- the cook who did not want Tiana to succeed and her "friends" who seemed unfazed that she was turning them down for dancing yet again. The other "black" characters, in contrast, were either animals or insects. Thirdly, the prince was not black. Ugh, while I appreciate the interracial aspect of the story, it would have been nice to see a black princess and a black prince live happily ever after, just like their white counterparts.
All in all, this movie was disappointing. It did nothing to further any helpful conversations about race and instead pandered to stereotypes which only further promote the view of "white as normal." Why else would the Prince not be black? (And if the Princess was the only thing Disney wanted to change, why is the Prince not white, but ambiguously raced?)
Somehow, this film seemed more about the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality, than the prince will rescue me storyline. Model minority propaganda, that's it. Plus, for over half of the movie, they're frogs. End of story.
* This post was too long, so I'll talk about the Planet of the Apes another day. Look for Part Two!
This week I have seen at least two movies that deal with representations of blackness: The Princess (2009) and the Frog and Planet of the Apes (2001). Both of these movies, whether subtly or deliberately, engaged in conversation about race and race relations, however it took me by surprise that the movie about which I held the most hope for commenting positively about blackness ended up being the most disappointing. Here's why.
"The film, which began production under the working title The Frog Princess, is an American fairy tale, Broadway-style musical set in the French Quater of New Orleans at the height of the Roaring Twenties. A prince named Naveen (Bruno Campos) from the land of Maldonia is transformed into a frog by the evil scheming voodoo magician Dr. Facilier (Keith David). The frog prince mistakes a girl named Tiana (Anika Noni Rose) for a princess and has her kiss him to break the spell. The kiss does not break the spell, but instead turns Tiana into a frog as well. Together, the two of them must reach the good voodoo queen of the deepest, darkest part of the Bayou, Mama Odie (Jenifer Lewis), while befriending a trumpet-playing alligator Louis (Michael-Leon Wooley) and a hopelessly romantic Cajun firefly named Ray (Jim Cummings) along the way." (Wikipedia)
The Princess and the Frog seems an innocent enough movie. The main character, Tiana, is a hard working waitress who dreams of owning her own restaurant, a dream passed down by her father who died before it could be realized. However, the beginning of the movie, literally the first two minutes showed that this was not a movie by which long held beliefs about racial stereotypes would be challenged.
The opening scene reveals two little girls, one white and one black, listening intently as a black women reads them a story. She's accomplishing two tasks at once; she turns the pages even as she sews the little pink princess dress. This women is Eudora, the main character's mother who works as a seamstress for "Big Daddy" La Beouff, the wealthiest man in New Orleans. As she and Tiana board the bus for home after a long days work, the houses switch from styles grand and glorious to crumbling shacks. Years pass and we learn that as a young women Tiana works two waitress jobs and saves money so that she can open "Tiana's Place." (The viewer can already see that invisible "a" between the "P" and "l" when she, as all Princesses do, gets the happily ever after.) Lottie, who has heard that Prince Naveen from Maldonia is coming, hires Tiana to make her famous dessert and serve it at her impromptu ball, to help her win the prince's heart. Prince Naveen has come to win a rich lady's heart so that he may continue to play his music and "loaf,"but gets caught up in the Shadow Man's tricks and is turned into a frog while his valet masquerades as him so that they can split the money. It is at
I explain this in depth because all these scenes happen within the first half-hour of the movie and are the most problematic. First, the storyline is in no way based on the book, The Frog Princess or even the folktale "The Princess and the Frog. Tiana (whose name was supposed to be Maddy, but Disney quickly changed the name to something less "slave-like" to avoid controversy) is a waitress, not a princess. In the other two works, the Princess is a princess at the beginning of the story. I would have rather they left the title, the Frog Princess; it would have been less misleading. However, this can be overlooked since in other Disney stories, the girl starts out as little more than a nobody too.
However, the story is set in "real life"New Orleans. While I appreciate Disney's attempt to draw in history and place the story within a black context, why can't the black princess live in a land "far, far away"? The critics quoted by Wikipedia (who speak nothing of the controversy surrounding the movie) hail the movie as a Disney movie much like the old classics, but I disagree. I was expecting something more like a black Cinderella, but there were too many changes in the stock storyline for me to see it as anything but platitude.
Another problematic aspect is the voodoo aspect of the movie. This religion is most terribly represented. Too the movie makes it seem as if all black people in New Orleans believe and participate in this religion. One could argue that the focus of the movie blends in well with the settings history and culture--that New Orleans is a place where voodoo is practiced-- but even that argument fails because Princess movies aren't supposed to be specific (makes it harder for others to relate) but broad-cultured.
Lastly, there are three most devastating aspects which placed this movie forever into the "reject" pile. The first is that, for the most part, all the black people in this movie are the same color. HIGHLY problematic. Even allowing for the "sun" in New Orleans, there are ranges in color. Tied to this complaint is that the main character's skin tone changes. She is made to appear darker in her visions of the restaurant (perhaps to provide more contrast with her white dress). Apart from one mixed girl I knew in high school, people generally stay the same color from day to day (barring tanning of course). Secondly, the other black characters in this movie were portrayed negatively-- the cook who did not want Tiana to succeed and her "friends" who seemed unfazed that she was turning them down for dancing yet again. The other "black" characters, in contrast, were either animals or insects. Thirdly, the prince was not black. Ugh, while I appreciate the interracial aspect of the story, it would have been nice to see a black princess and a black prince live happily ever after, just like their white counterparts.
All in all, this movie was disappointing. It did nothing to further any helpful conversations about race and instead pandered to stereotypes which only further promote the view of "white as normal." Why else would the Prince not be black? (And if the Princess was the only thing Disney wanted to change, why is the Prince not white, but ambiguously raced?)
Somehow, this film seemed more about the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality, than the prince will rescue me storyline. Model minority propaganda, that's it. Plus, for over half of the movie, they're frogs. End of story.
* This post was too long, so I'll talk about the Planet of the Apes another day. Look for Part Two!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)