Watching the Academy Awards a few weeks ago was a bit of a stressful experience.
I was obviously stressed about whether or not Emma Stone would finally win an Oscar, but the stakes were bigger than that.
From the very beginning of this awards season, the conversation was clouded by last year’s Oscar’s So White controversy, where the show’s 88th run was criticized for a lack of diversity among its nominees.
This year’s ceremony was definitely a test of the relevance and awareness of the Academy, but it represented something more.
The entire country watched this year’s Academy Awards with bated breath, with a sense the results of the ceremony said more about themselves than the actors.
Collectively, we tend to use pop culture as a barometer for how we’re doing as a country; is that really fair to either?
For the few (brief) moments La La Land was 2016’s Best Picture, I could almost see the furious typing of Buzzfeed opinion columnists, writing the think piece of the year about what La La Land’s defeat of Moonlight meant about race in America.
They appeared within minutes when Adele’s 25 beat Beyonce’s Lemonade for Album of the Year a few weeks earlier at another high-profile awards show.
It’s not an unfair criticism to make, it might even be a necessary one.
Commentary and discourse about the results of the biggest acknowledgement of excellence within the entertainment industry is what keeps it moving forward.
The problem occurs when we take it a step too far.
An interesting phenomenon has popped up in the discourse about Hollywood’s diversity: the application of that discussion for a wider purpose in the political sphere.
There looms a need to connect entertainment stories to more “important” stories, such as ones related to the political climate.
Everything that happens in the world of entertainment is played off to represent something bigger.
A perfect example of this was the inaccurate announcing of La La Land as Best Picture.
The unfortunate mistake saw Moonlight literally taking the most coveted award in the movie industry from La La Land’s hands.
The conflict between those two movies lasted all throughout awards season, and many saw it as a direct reflection of the political polarization taking place in America.
The trend of the underdog win has not gone unnoticed in the last several months, either.
From Donald Trump unexpectedly winning on election night to the Patriots’ fourth quarter comeback in the Super Bowl, many saw Moonlight as a reiteration of that same trend.
It provides an easy answer, and, in Moonlight’s case, it’s exactly the answer we want.
In a time of unprecedented political polarization, it feels good to think we can all be as accepting as Moonlight.
The reality is not that easy.
Pop culture isn’t really a direct reflection of our political climate.
In fact, it’s often the opposite.
One of the biggest reasons La La Land was so dominant this awards season was because of its sense of escapism – it was refreshing to see something so not important.
It wasn’t trying to reflect our current political climate, it wasn’t trying to teach the audience a lesson.
It was simply telling a story, which is what all pop culture really goes back to.
The age of Trump has turned everything on its head, however.
La La Land didn’t win Best Picture.
Moonlight did, and that’s whatever the opposite of what escapism is.
That detail may be indicative that people are looking for a more relevant pop culture.
Still, that doesn’t change the fact that it’s nothing more than wishful thinking.
Here’s what it comes down to: both entertainment and politics are a reflection of who we are.
Both take the struggles of real people and harness those emotions on a national stage.
There’s a fundamental difference between the two, however.
Politics is a direct reflection of who we are; politicians are elected by the people, after all.
On the other hand, entertainment is often a reflection of who we want to be.
The stories that are told, from Moonlight to La La Land and Lemonade to 25 represent where we want to be going, not necessarily where we are.
Using pop culture as a barometer is only somewhat effective.
Moonlight’s win at the Academy Awards does not mean racism in America is over, in fact it doesn’t even mean racism in Hollywood is over.
The Pop Culture Barometer as a construct is an oversimplification.
Hollywood’s failures are not America’s failures, their successes are not our successes, and vice versa.
Pop culture is a representation of everything we want to be, and it’s often a reflection of the very best of ourselves.
Using it to try to explain things like political polarization is where the comparison fails.
At the end of the day, understanding where we want to go is crucial to understanding ourselves, but it doesn’t do anything to describe where we are now.
So while it’s great to know we all want to be Emma Stone, it’s important to realize we’re not quite there yet.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.
This is an opinion piece. It is the opinion of the author and does not necessarily represent the views of RISE NEWS.
Cover Photo Credit: La La Land/ Facebook
What Do You Think?
-
A Liberal Arts Education Has Never Been More Important
“Liberal arts.”
A term that I have heard since I was a child – but not in a positive way.
My mother and a few of her siblings received an Associate’s Degree in Liberal Arts from a community college in New York City after I was born and have always said that it was a loss: “No haga eso porque es una pérdida de tiempo.”
They would have specialized in something specific, something that they were passionate about, rather than following a suggestion that was seen as appropriate for those who had just immigrated to the United States.
I remember Mami always helping me with my math homework well into high school and trying to figure out why she did not pursue something having to deal with numbers – turns out a dream of hers was to be an accountant.
Photo Credit: Ed Bierman/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
As I began the college application process (fun fact: I sent in my decision to Colgate University exactly 5 years ago today), my high school counselor as well as my program counselor both suggested that I focus on liberal arts colleges.
I wanted to say no immediately as I thought back to my mother’s college experience.
However, there must have been a reason why these experienced counselors made the suggestion.
As I began my research, I saw that these liberal arts colleges tended to be on the smaller side with an emphasis on taking classes across multiple departments and disciplines.
The size of these schools seemed like a dream come true since I was used to being in a class with about 38 other girls from the 7th grade until my last year of high school.
The notion of taking classes in a wide range of departments also stood out to me – I had absolutely no clue what I wanted to do after college.
My career choices had consisted of the following: doctor, Miami Heat dancer, Olivia Benson from ‘SVU.’ sports agent, and the list goes on.
Being able to take classes with different professors regarding different subjects is exactly what I wanted.
I wanted college to be a time where the academia I was surrounded by would help me decide on a career path (along with the students I was surrounded by).
Thankfully, after convincing my mother that I was attending a liberal arts college and not getting a liberal arts degree, I decided on Colgate, and I do not regret the liberal arts experience whatsoever – it was exactly what I needed.
Although I was a sociology and Spanish double major, I also took classes in the religion, economics, theater, English, political science, women’s studies, Caribbean, psychology, mathematics, philosophy, and geography departments.
So many of my classes crossed between departments, and I was able to meet other students and professors I probably would not have met had I gone to a school where you were obligated to have some sense of your future and enter with a specialized field in mind.
As I entered the work of employment, I realized how valuable my liberal arts education truly was: I learned how to be creative in my theater classes, how to communicate in my political science classes, how to think about others in my sociology classes, how to write efficiently in my English classes, and so much more that words simply could not do justice.
There is a need to know more than just technical skills once you reach that point in your life.
Colgate University, this may seem like a love letter to you, but thank you for allowing me to explore subjects that I never thought I would have the chance to.
Thank you for allowing me to get to meet students with a range of different interests.
Thank you for pushing me to love sociology and the Spanish culture.
Thank you for helping me to realize I want to be a lawyer and help those that do not have a voice.
Thank you liberal arts.
You do matter, especially in this new age we find ourselves in.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.
Cover Photo Credit: Roman Boed/Flickr (CC by 2.0)
What Do You Think?
-
Hong Kong Is Already More Independent Than Any EU Country
By Raphael Blet
In a time when the call for independence constantly increases, we need to put the dots on the i’s.
There is nothing wrong with discussing independence and the right to self-determination.
What is necessary for those independence advocates and supporters is to be conscious that sovereignty isn’t the key to independence and self-determination.
I have recently met some Hong Kong people who seemed to show their admiration for the European Union but at the same time, are advocating Hong Kong’s independence.
Isn’t it ironic to admire a supranational force when you advocate self-determination for yourself?
Many Hong Kong independence advocates who have not lived in Europe might not realize that Hong Kong is in fact much more independent than France, Germany or any other EU member state.
Despite not being a sovereign territory, Hong Kong benefits from more independence compared to EU countries like France or Spain. While the Basic Law guarantees Hong Kong’s autonomy, the EU’s Treaty of Lisbon advocates supranational submission.
While Hong Kong controls its borders and trade, EU members don’t as they are mostly signatory of the Schengen agreement which does not allow them to filter humans and goods entering their territory.
At the same time, Hong Kong has an independent judiciary in which Mainland laws do not interfere while European countries have to follow what is known as ‘directives’.
Such directives coming from the two parliaments (in Brussels and Strasbourg) are imposed to the national laws.
This strongly harms the judicial integrity of member states.
This without talking about monetary sovereignty which doesn’t exist in Europe.
When Hong Kong has its own currency, most EU members are depending on a single currency on which they have no control.
Some might refute my arguments with empirical evidence and say that either the two problems are not comparable or that the EU’s constitution was ratified after consulting the people.
This isn’t a valid argument as the Treaty of Lisbon was rejected by the French (54.67%) and Dutch (61.54%) voters who were later forced to accept it despite showing their opposition in the ballots.
All the examples given are enough to assume that Hong Kong has already more autonomy and self-determination compared to EU member countries.
As a ‘European’ who is reluctant in regards to EU institutions, it is even more revolting to see some EU officials commenting about democracy and sovereignty in the world while their own institution is anything but democratic.
Unfortunately, many people will not be willing to assume this reality, their answers being as usual: ‘it’s impossible to make such comparison.’
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.
You can also like our RISE NEWS Hong Kong Facebook page to stay engaged with our local coverage.
Cover Photo Credit: Bernard Spragg. NZ/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
What Do You Think?
-
When It Comes To Mass Shootings, Your “Thoughts And Prayers” Are Meaningless
The following is the opinion of the writer of this piece and not necessarily of Rise News.
It happened again Wednesday. Another community was shaken to the core by violence and the ubiquitous sound of gunfire.
This time, it was San Bernardino, CA. As the full facts of the incident are still being sorted out, this will not be a rant about terrorism.
Instead, this is about the reactions. According to the Boston Globe, there have been 355 mass shootings in 2015. Note that, as of yesterday, there have been 336 days in 2015.
Here’s a pause to let that sink in.
The United States of America, the “free” country that champions “liberty” is the site of more than one mass shooting a day.
And if you think that number will taper off as the year draws to a close, you are delusional. There will be more.
But again, this isn’t about what could be done to stop this, or what should be done. This is about the people who actually have the power to make changes, and yet do nothing.
Every time a tragedy like this occurs, people jump on social media to send condolences to the victims. This ranges from Mr. and Mrs. Doe to the President.
And with many of these posts, a common phrase is typed. A phrase which has become the default for grief; “My thoughts and prayers”.
This phrase, and variations thereof, is absolutely meaningless. It is just as meaningless no matter who says it, but it is particularly nauseous to read when it is spouted by the very people who should be doing something.
Allow me to break down why it’s meaningless in a rational sense before the political discourse starts.
Thoughts do not get anything done. Words do not get anything done. Actions get things done. And until there are actions taken, nothing will change.
It is up to normal human beings to create change.
The New York Daily News hit this on the nose with cover that ran on Thursday.
An early look at tomorrow’s front page… GOD ISN’T FIXING THIS: https://t.co/eKUg5f03ec pic.twitter.com/j4gEFg9YtJ
— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) December 3, 2015
You will notice that all (save for House Speaker Paul Ryan) of the Twitter posts the headline highlights are from present contenders for the GOP presidential nomination. You might also notice that they are all Congressmen.
These very men, along with many others of course, have the power to enact new laws. They could put into place stricter gun regulations, or alter conceal-carry laws, or something. But they don’t. And they won’t.
The simple reason: gun violence gets them paid. We all know about the NRA, the National Rifle Association.
While not all gun-owners are registered members, the NRA makes up the largest gun lobby in Washington. As a lobby, they dole out money in the form of campaign contributions to various elected officials.
Of course, this is with the understanding that said officials will work for the benefit of the NRA by either passing or blocking certain bills in either state or national Congress.
So do you want to know how much the NRA is putting in politician’s pockets? Well the numbers are sometimes sketchy, but you can look here and here to start.
Igor Volsky the Director of Video at Think Progress sent out a series of Tweets yesterday, along with an article detailing how much money certain members of Congress received from the NRA.
The common ground between all these politicians listed? They all sent out Tweets yesterday with some version of “thoughts and prayers”.
To sum this all up, look at a Tweet posted yesterday by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT):
Your “thoughts” should be about steps to take to stop this carnage. Your “prayers” should be for forgiveness if you do nothing – again.
— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) December 2, 2015
This is poignant because of where Murphy is from.
In 2012, he was the Representative for Connecticut’s Fifth District, which included Newtown, the site of the Sandy Hook massacre. He has seen his constituents killed, and he is tired of seeing the same ever-repeating platitudes said with no substance to back them up.
It is time for America and Americans to open their eyes. These are not one-off incidents of lunatics. This is terror enabled by the very people who should be doing their best to keep Americans safe.
It is time to stop gun violence. And it is time to call out those who put the almighty dollar above safety and security.
This will happen again. And when it does, there will be no time for your “thoughts and prayers.”
Cover Photo Credit: Ben Townsend/Flickr (CC 2.0)
What Do You Think?