Post-Colonial America Needs Truth & Reconciliation

I.

The United States is a post-colonial nation. It may not seem post-colonial – India, Kenya, South Africa… Those are the nations that come to mind when many think “post-colonial,” if you’re one to think about postcolonialism, that is. 

But the States are nonetheless post-colonial. We too bear the racial, social, and economic wounds left by imperial despots. We too grapple with the legacies of colonial divisions. It’s not as if racism existed here indigenously. It’s a colonial import.

That’s what colonialism does: it segments people by social constructions like skin color, religion, gender – anything colonialism can use to turn people into subjects and create an idolized “ideal” that dominates a dehumanized “other.”

In this invasive way, colonialism distorts every civil interaction, warping history and identities to make its self-serving philosophies seem sane. Right and wrong, deserving and undeserving, legitimate and illegitimate – these concepts are manipulated to suit the oppressor’s needs, and the stink lingers long after the overlords are ousted. 

“Imperialism leaves germs of rot,” postcolonial theorist Frantz Fanon wrote. 

The only way to cleanse this grotesque, colonial canker is by “removing” it from our minds, hearts, and society. America never did that, and we’re still paying the price. The only way forward is through Truth and Reconciliation.

Continue reading

Will Prison Further Radicalize MAGA?

Fans of democracy rightfully cheered the conviction of Enrique Tarrio and all others who tried to take down our nation in Donald Trump’s name. But their imprisonments aren’t the end of the danger. Instead, it could be the beginning of a more radical, militant, and fervid fascist movement in America.

We’ve seen it happen in organizations like Al-Qaeda – they grow their ranks abroad and here by enticing fellow inmates, further warping their minds in an echo chamber of grievances. Or they use their notoriety to gain more adherents, grow their ranks, and sow more terror. 

That could very well happen to Aiden Bilyard, a North Carolina man who was 18 when he stormed the capital, or Bruno Joseph Cua, who was also 18 and will be sentenced next week. 

These young, impressionable people could easily be drawn further into a movement that wants to use them as an example. That’s what we see happening to Kyle Rittenhouse: he shot a pro-democracy protester and has been embraced as a hero by the right. (Example: Idaho Republicans recently auctioned off “Trigger Time” with the gun-loving youngster.)

No doubt insurrectionists and conspirators like Torres are still communicating with their friends outside and making new ones inside and becoming an entirely new threat in the process: a more concentrated form of fascism.

So, how do we prevent the further militarization of MAGA convicts? By ensuring that they’re rehabilitated in prison, not further radicalized.

One way is by supporting prison programs that actively counter racist, sexist, and, frankly, anti-American attitudes. MAGA-aligned inmates must be exposed to new ways of thought and accurate history of the United States. They must be reformed rather than left to congeal together and stew into something even more violent. 

If not, we face a future with a more zealous fascist movement than even Donald Trump can imagine – true terror. 

When Racists Embraced Remote Learning

Most of us know that in 1957, Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus deployed the National Guard to prevent school integration in Little Rock. It did not go as planned: President Eisenhower used his superior power to override Faubus and ordered the Guard to instead protect the students, the Little Rock Nine – a move that ushered in integration in Arkansas’s capital city and showed the world that America was moving forward.

Equality won and Faubus was defeated…

The hateful governor, however, did not go quietly: the next year, 1958, as part of a broader “massive resistance” to integration, Gov. Faubus closed all of Little Rock’s public high schools and replaced them with television lessons produced at local tv stations.

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette explains: “Each channel would offer 30-minute courses in English, math, history and science, with each station focusing on one grade level. The students would be on an honor system to watch… and there would be no homework or credit given.”

That’s right – rather than mix races, Faubus tried to entirely upend education – a bit like Ron DeSantis threatening to dismantle AP courses because he doesn’t believe in teaching true American history.

While Faubus thought he was clever, students were less than impressed. One 14-year-old said at the time, “I can’t wait to get back to school. The TV programs are fine, but I wish there was some way to have class discussions.” Another reflected later: “It was insignificant. It was watching some teachers talk on TV. It was the most modest form of educational experience.”

The courts were equally critical: a judge ruled Arkansas’ racist remote learning was just as unjust and unconstitutional as segregation itself and Faubus was once again forced to treat all people the same. Loser.

So, next time you hear a conservative gripe about remote learning during the COVID pandemic [or the next pandemic], remind them that their ideological ancestors pioneered remote learning to prop up racist discrimination. Isn’t it ironic?

[In an added twist, Faubus was a Democrat and Eisenhower a Republican – this was before the Dems moved left and the GOP adopted the “southern strategy” that began its embrace of hateful, discriminatory policies that define it today.]

(All images Thomas J. O’Halloran, via the Library of Congress.)

A ‘Medium’ Experiment

Just a heads up: I’m currently transitioning In Case You’re Interested over to Medium.

It will have the same historic and political slant as this version of the site, plus the addition of interviews, more comic book coverage, and potentially some short fiction. We’ll see. We’ll also see how long this move to Medium lasts – could be brief or could be forever. Only time will tell!

That said, please visit my new page over at Medium. I’m still moving content over and hope to have it all together by the end of the week. Again, we’ll see.

Thank you for your support so far!

The Cat and The Corn Dog: A True Fable

 

Impatience is my most persistent character flaw. When I was younger, fantasizing about future successes, or even just eager for the latest Uncanny X-Men, my grandmother, in her no-nonsense Massachusetts accent, would advise, “Slow down, baby boy; enjoy your time now.” Her advice made me more aware of my impatience, but it didn’t diminish it; restiveness remains within me, nagging when inconvenience, real or imagined, arises.

Continue reading

What Would EM Forster Say About Anonymous’ Warning?

EM Forster’s best known for novels like A Room with a View and Howard’s End, but the English author also wrote extensively about politics and civil society, including an essay called “Anonymity: An Enquiry.” Originally published in November 1925’s The Calendar of Modern Letters, Forster’s piece seems relevant today, ahead of A Warning, the forthcoming tell-all by the anonymous White House staffer who wrote last year’s New York Times op-ed, “I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration.” I expected freedom of speech-loving Forster to support anonymity, full stop, but his take’s more nuanced, though perhaps not nuanced enough.

Continue reading

Soldiers Writing Letters During Wartime

“Tommy writing home after battle, 1917.”

With Veterans Day on Monday, I thought it would be nice to share some images of soldiers writing home during war time. Most of the images are from World War I, with a few from the horrific sequel, and one from 1908, before anyone knew what lay ahead.

I can’t help but wonder what these guys are writing – are they easing worried mothers’ minds, regaling a lover with tales of heroism real or imagined, or are they admitting their terror to a confidant? Whatever the subject of their letters, these images highlight  the deep need humans have to communicate and connect, even as the world crumbles around them.

For other related imagery, check out this gallery of the iconic  Tuskegee Airmen.

All images are, of course, Found in the LOC.

 

“Red Cross Worker Helps British Soldier, 1942.”

 

Image Links:

  1. “Tommy Writing Home After Battle, 1917.”
  2. “American Soldiers, Chateauroux, Oct. 1918.”
  3. “Soldiers in Texas Writing Home, April 1914.”
  4. “Military Hospital Tent, France, August 1918.”
  5. “British Soldiers with Bug Nets, Egypt, 1940.”
  6. “At ease / Signal Corps U.S.A., 1917.”
  7. “Red Cross, Chateauroux, October 31, 1918.”
  8. “Theodor Horydczak writing at desk, 1920.”
  9. “Nurse Writing for a Soldier, Neuilly, June 1918.”
  10. “A Letter Home, June 1918.”
  11. “YMCA Writing Room, Nice, 1915.”
  12. “Writing Home, Fort Hamilton, 1908.”
  13. “Writing a Letter Home, Greenville, SC, 1943.”
  14. “Red Cross Worker Helps British Soldier, 1942.”

Working Girl 9-5, Private!

Remember a few years ago, when the female-led Ghostbusters debuted, and critics asked sexist things like “Are women funny?” and “Can women carry the box office?” It was basically the same chorus of sexist garbage we hear whenever there’s a big comedy starring a woman or women.

In response, I planned on highlighting 80s-era female-led comedies that made mad bank — proof that, yes female-led comedies can carry the box office, and have been for decades.

Here are the movies I had in mind.

  • 9-5, 1980 – Budget: $10 million; Box office: $103.3 million
  • Private Benjamin, 1980 – Budget: $15 million; Box office $69,847,348
  • Terms of Endearment, 1983 – Budget: $8 million; Box office, $108.4 million
  • Baby Boom, 1987 – Budget: $15 million; Box Office: $26 million.
  • Working Girl, 1988 – Budget: $28.6 million; Box office: $102 million

My planned conclusion was going to be something like, “Regardless of the odd flop here and there, see: Big Business and Outrageous Fortune, women had the last laugh ages ago; too bad people didn’t get the joke.” I don’t know. Maybe. It never got past the idea phase.

But while working on that Macho Catchphrase piece, I realized that the movies bulleted above, and others, were counterpoints to those violent, male ego-driven characters. Just as 70s and 80s macho men reflected a broader male anxiety, female-starring movies of the 80s showed the empowered woman taking her place where she belonged, on her terms – of endearment and otherwise. Just as the macho men were a response to real-life women’s liberation, these movies were the antithesis: flicks that showed the trials, tribulations, and potential triumphs of women tackling patriarchal systems. This wasn’t just the zeitgeist picking up and depositing subtexts, as in the macho examples; these cinematic expressions were concerted efforts to change the conversation.*

Sure, that era’s macho men and their one-liners earned more money at the box office and more fully penetrated the zeitgeist, no pun intended, but the female-led flicks had more heart, something that beats a machine gun any day, both onscreen and off.

(*Tootsie and Mr. Mom get honorable mention for their respective takes on the misogynistic realities and double standards women face every day.)

Macho Catchphrases and Ascendant Feminism, 1971-1984

Hollywood circa the 1970s and early 80s spewed forth a slew of macho catchphrases. Here are a few examples; you’ll recognize every testosterone-laden specimen:

  • “You’ve got to ask yourself one question: ‘Do I feel lucky?’ Well, do ya, punk?” – Harry Callahan, Dirty Harry, 1971
  • “I’m going to make him an offer he can’t refuse.” – Vito Corleone, The Godfather, 1972.
  • “You talkin’ to me?” – Travis Bickle, Taxi Driver, 1976
  • “Go ahead, make my day.” – Harry Callahan (again), Sudden Impact, 1983.
  • “Say hello to my little friend.” – Tony Montana, Scarface, 1983.
  • “I’ll be back.” – The Terminator, Terminator, 1984.

Swashbucklers, cowboys, and tough guys had been Hollywood heroes for decades: Errol Flynn and John Wayne’s stock of masculine icons come to mind. Many even uttered catchy one-liners that became cultural mainstays, i.e. Rhett Butler’s “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn.” And some of said phrases were as aggressive as those above, such as The Honeymooners’ Ralph Kramden’s persistent threat of domestic abuse, “One of these days, POW!!! Right in the kisser!” But the Me Decade saw an unprecedented ejaculation of terse, violence-tinged retorts.

What drove this trend toward curt fury? Was this celluloid rage a reflection of a real-world torn asunder by Vietnam-era chaos? Did jaded, shock-inured audiences just need to be jarred and awed? Was it that Hollywood writers of that era were informed by television, a pithier media than the radio that nursed earlier scribes?  All are plausible possibilities. Yet it’s just as likely these macho one-liners were a reply to the ascendant women’s liberation movement.

Continue reading

How Writing is Like Acting

Writers and actors are a lot alike. Sure, the professions play different roles in the American imagination: actors are cast as sun-kissed faces of California dreams, and writers are portrayed as solitary, often curmudgeonly creatures; actors conjure ideas of red carpet wishes and designer-clad dreams, writers a wooly cardigan and a cozy cabin, or some similarly hermetic locale. But though actors peddle in scenes and writers work in syllables, the mechanics and business of these professions are very much the same.

And while the most obvious parallel is that actors and writers are both entertainers, which explains there are so many actors who are also writers — Tina Fey, Steve Martin, Tom Hanks, and Jamie Lee Curtis, to name a few, there are more nuanced similarities, as well.

Preamble accomplished, here are 15.5 ways writers are like actors.

[Note, this is not an exhaustive list. If you have a suggestion, let me know in the comments.]

1. Proceed with Caution — There’s an old joke that every LA waiter has a headshot at the ready. The same could be said about New York baristas and novels. Yes, the waiter could have a novel and the barista a headshot, but you get the gist: Just as there are scads of young, bright-eyed ingenues vying for acting gigs, there are just as many young, bright-eyed literary types trying to get published – all absolutely sure they have “it.”

In other words, writing and acting are both crowded, competitive, and all together quixotic career paths. Success is rare, and so is financial payoff. Nantucket? More like a cramped apartment. Designer dreams? Try a thrift store knock-off.

Considering the odds of success or monetary security, it’s therefore best that aspiring writers, like their theatrical counterparts, find a plan B. Unless, of course, you want a lifetime of debt, deadlines, nary a retirement plan and, most terrifying of all, writer’s block!

2. Mission: Audition — The process is different, but actors and writers both audition for their roles/bylines, and I dare say writers’ pitches are more difficult. While actors must undergo the nerve-wracking experience of auditioning for a room full of strangers, they at least have outlets like Backstage or agents who can tell them more about the part, i.e. “Sally, a twenty-something waitress waiting for her big break after fleeing her alcoholic mother.”

Writers don’t have such luxuries. We do have Submittable, where editors post editorial asks, or maybe an outlet will announce a specific theme, but for the most part writers stumble around in the rhetorical dark, sending cold emails to editors and hoping against hope we get a reply — which is essentially an audition without the script, name recognition, or the benefit of a face-to-face meeting.

Even when you do have name recognition or a previous relationship with an editor, that’s no guarantee of publication — I was just rejected by two editors with whom I’ve worked for years.

On that note…

Continue reading