|
||
Horton Hears a Racist
Barack Obama is my choice for president. I've already explained why in previous posts. But if Obama isn't elected, it would be hard to blame racism. Republicans aren't going to vote for him, not because he's black, but because, even worse, he's a Democrat. And for the most part, Obama has garnered more popular support among white voters than any other candidate. If Obama is elected, I believe that through his leadership skills and intelligence he will usher in a dynamic new era of government by inclusion rather than secrecy. Like John F. Kennedy, Obama will inspire a younger generation and invigorate the older generation to take greater part in their government, society, and community.
But there are many obstacles this New Era will have to face. A sagging economy. War abroad. Faltering education.
And, worst of all, the movie Horton Hears a Who.
This isn't a review of the movie, it's a review of how Hollywood sometimes contributes to the divisiveness within the country. Ironically, Horton Hears a Who has done more damage to our society than the recent slate of politically motivated movies about the war in Iraq (Rendition, Stop-Loss, Lambs for Lions, Redacted, In the Valley of Elah, etc.) has done good. For one thing, more people saw Horton than saw all the other movies combined.
How can a beloved Dr. Seuss story do so much harm? Well, the original book by Dr. Seuss is just fine, a timeless tale that has been delighting children since it was first published in 1954. The story of the brave elephant that is willing to endure the harshest condemnation from his friends and community in order to protect those in need is a wonderful lesson for children.
But then along comes the movie. To make the story long enough for a full-length movie, a sub-plot was added about the mayor of Whoville who has 96 cheerful daughters and one brooding son. This is where things take a nasty turn. Basically, the mayor ignores his 96 daughters in order to groom his uninterested son to become mayor. Why doesn't he groom one of his much more enthusiastic daughters? And, of course, it is the brooding son who, in the end, saves the entire world of Whoville. The daughters? They get to cheer from the sidelines. While it's true that in the book a "very small shirker named Jo-Jo" does add his tiny voice to the din and thus saves Whoville, but that promotes the idea that we all have our part to play in our community, not that sons are smarter than daughters.
"Hey, it's just a cartoon," you might say. But this particular cartoon will be seen by millions of children around the world. And they will come away with a clear impression that a single son is worth more than 96 daughters. That boys are inherently more valuable than girls, and more likely to be successful (in this case, in saving the world) than girls.
What's especially insidious here isn't just that the subplot was written and approved and filmed, but that since the movie has come out, there hasn't been a popular outcry about it. That we don't even ask why, in the years it took to make the movie, no one along the line said, "This isn't a good message to send to our kids." Is it because sexism is so ingrained in our society that we don't even flinch at it when it's shoved in our faces?
What's all this have to do with racism?
Well, if our society is willing to tolerate any form of social injustice and discrimination toward any single group, then they have created a breeding ground for injustice throughout society. If we allow sexism, ageism, homophobia, religious intolerance, than racism can only flourish as well. We expose our impressionable children to funny cartoons about wacky animals voiced by famous actors and what do we think is going to happen? Will a little girl step out of Horton feeling empowered and motivated, or just slightly less capable than the little boy walking beside her?
I don't think the filmmakers are evil or that they deliberately set out to send this awful message. Somehow it seems worse that they didn't notice.
Maybe after eight years of Barack Obama's presidency, our society will have evolved to a place where the filmmakers and the audiences won't tolerate even the most subtle forms of discrimination. At least with Barcak Obama, we have hope that such a world might be.
For more blogs by Kareem visit www.latimes.com/kareem
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Let me see if I have this interpretation straight...
Because the Mayor of Whoville (who represents American Society) is too sexist to give the job to one of his capable and enthusiastic daughters, that makes him a racist, because he condones sexism. The daughters represent Barack Obama and the brooding son represents Hillary Clinton.
Now here comes the slam-dunk. Abdul-Jabar concludes that if we give the job to Obama (a daughter) for eight years, there's hope that one day we will be able to put discrimination behind us and elect a real woman.
Are you stupid or obtuse? I can't tell. You parsed it like George Bush would. But is that because you did your best or because you play stupid for effect?
Do you come this site to excel or to indulge your worst features? Never mind. I know you.
I felt the same outrage at "Hook." The daughter is put into a similarly helpless cheerleading role.
Well, technically that's sexism. But as far as I'm concerned, sexism might as well be racism.
That was Kareem's point.
While we're at it, let's stamp out fat-ism and short-ism, too!
OTAY!
And stupidism.
But not ignorantism.
Sorry that reply was for language police
Hello, Mr. Language Police here:
"If we allow sexism, ageism, homophobia, religious intolerance, than racism can only flourish as well."
See if you can pick out the grammatical error.
then, instead of "than"...hope you could still concentrate on the message.
"than" should be "then"...
I'll play devils advocate (as usual). Then decline of our language and it's varied usage is also contributing to the decline of our society in equally varied ways.
A high school English teacher may well feel that way. I suppose it's entirely possible to parlay nearly any subject or occurrence that annoys you into the end of the world as we know it.
But in this case... I'll personally stick with the first sentence from the seventh paragraph.
I think you meant "...and its varied usage," and not "... and it's varied usage."
This is fun!
While I understand that the men you encounter may speak to you with disrespect, and that there may be financial incentives for creation of such offensive lyrics, this limited demographic is not representative of black men as a group. If you read up on the subject, you'll find that the demographic most likely to buy a hip hop album is a suburban white teenage male (think the Duke lacrosse team and their stripper, a couple of years back), and not the people you suggest. Do you see the futility of Kareem "working" only with black men on this issue? By writing this article, he "works on" all of us at once. I ask you, given this problem, which method is more effective?
As this article shows, misogyny is not exclusively found in hip-hop music. While it does exist in the music and is damaging, I suggest that the more subversive and insidious messages permeate the visual arts, film, television and advertising is MUCH more damaging, because they play upon our subconscious, and are more difficult to screen out.
"As this article shows, misogyny is not exclusively found in hip-hop music. While it does exist in the music and is damaging, I suggest that the more subversive and insidious messages permeate the visual arts, film, television and advertising is MUCH more damaging, because they play upon our subconscious, and are more difficult to screen out."
Well put. My problem is that although I understand these mysoginist values are deeply ingrained within our cultrue...I also find myself typically enjoying the sources of entertainment which most promote them. I am a huge comic book geek, particularly independant comics, in which 9 out of 10 women are hookers and the 10th is a woman who at first appears strong and self sufficient, but ultimately crumples in the face of danger and needs to be saved by her male counterpart. If there IS a consistantly strong woman, she's typically a violent villain or a mentally unstable hero- implying women need to be crazy to overcome their natural, subserviant roles. There's a great quote from the film "Iron Jawed Angels": "Courage in women is often mistaken for madness."
Similarly, I like actions movies, and some offensive rap music. I don't FEEL disempowered after I enjoy these kids of entertainment, but what about my subconcious? Is it wrong for me to enjoy something, to support it financially, if I know it is laced with a messege that ultimately undermines me as a woman? Am I a hypocrit?
Cat, I believe art is art, whatever the medium. You are an adult, and can read, watch, listen to whatever entertains you, like all of us. Artists are free to create. What you personally do not like or find offensive, you can choose not to purchase. You can even create alternatives to what you find personally offensive, you can critique it and post it here, you can parody it, etc.
I was responding to Jazzygirl26, who seems to think that Kareem should first deal with issues in the black community before pointing out problems in Horton. For reasons discussed here, that is absurd.
Although it certainly would not surprise me if Kareem did "do work" (outside of this thoughtful article) on this subject, I suggest if he did nothing more than always treat women he encounters with respect, he will be required to do no more. This is simply the "work" we all need to do individually to create a more civil society. You write this as if he has no grounds to raise the issue of misogyny in this film unless he first "does work" on the sexism of black men! This is absurd. If you did google Kareem, you would find that his world view is not as insular as yours sounds, and is much broader than the limited scope you prescribe for him.
The simple solution for you is to turn off your radio, and stop believing that all single men between 18-25 who tend to listen to this music that is offensive to you represents the majority of black men. That is a myth. I understand that this is the group of men you may know best, if so, broaden your own horizons, stop fixating on youth culture, and stop maligning black men as group based on your own limited experience.
Wonderful..the thought of eight years of every innocent movie, conversation, debate being contorted into subiminal racist insults. I'm really looking forward to that. Whites shoud forever feel uncomfrtable talking to, with or about African-Americns because of the fear of unintended offense. That will go a great way toward breaking down color barriers.
Researchguy66, that was a very closed-minded response, hinting of a self-esteem issue and of bigotry.
Research, my comments were directed to a person who complained that Kareem should deal with misogyny of the so called "black community" before dealing with what he found in the film. I firmly believe that an artistic creation in any medium should be expressed without limitations. My point is that when it comes rap lyrics, or anything else someone disagrees with, you can always opt not to endorse.
If you have a child, a daughter, how do you explain the subplot in this movie? My point is that at least if you are buying an early Too Short album, you know what you are going to get. Not so with the film. Sure, I can explain it to my kid that it is just a movie, but by the time she becomes an adult, how many times can one repeat this?
Your knee-jerk reaction is interesting, though. Eight years? HUH? Your response has nothing to do with what I've written about here. BTW--If you have any racist views, and you feel the need to express them, count on me to call you out.
Kareem - dude - I have a 5 year old daughter - we went to the movie with my wife - we all liked it . Now this subplot angle you've decided to pursue is interesting but you realize that it sounds much like those who say SpongeBob and Teletubbies are gay propaganda. Maybe you think that too. But here's how I see it. Kids are smarter than we give them credit for. The little girls in the audience may even benefit from the fact that the Horton writers are preparing them for the real world - you know where we men call all the shots and you have to be twice as good as a man if you are woman and want to succeed. Maybe that's what the writers wanted to expose to our princesses. No - I think it was just a cool movie - and if you have a five year old girl, she'll be happy if you take her to see it..
this is exactly response expected from a man!
A Blues man no less... You know the type. All hours in smokey dens of ill repute, manipulating their electrified instruments. Drinking cheap whiskeys and boasting to bar maids. Treating the kids to an Elephant movie.
I'll admit that I haven't seen the movie, even though my kids definitely want me to change that reality. I am, however, willing to take as fact Mr. Abdul-Jabbar's recounting of the "96--1" issue.
My problem is that while the Original Poster's analysis leads me to think, again without having seen it, that the film might have a sexist bias, I think it's a stretch to jump to the "racist" conclusion other than by saying that any bias creates fertile ground for other prejudices. I also think it's even more of a stretch to turn the film into a Case Study for the election of a particular candidate, when one of the standing candidates confronts racism everyday, another confronts sexism on a daily basis and another deals with ageism.
I would have been more comfortable if Mr. Abdul-Jabbar had simply concluded that bias begets bias in multiple areas. But, then again, that wouldn't have made for his blog's attention-grabbing title and he wouldn't have been able to turn the film into an argument for his chosen candidate.
I agree with the critique of this aspect of the movie, but I think the leap to racism was a bit of a stretch. A better title would have been Horton Hears a Sexist.
On the more positive note, the most moving part of the movie for me was the scene in which the tiny citizens of Whoville were desperately trying to make some noise to prove that they existed and thereby avoid being carelessly tossed into the fire. For me this was a metaphor for Africans confronting AIDS, genocide in Darfur, bombing and chaos in Iraq,and the uninsured in America and failing schools in inner cities and rural communities. There are literally billions of people around the world and millions here at home who are desperately trying to call attention to themselves and the conditions under which they live in the hopes that someone will hear and that as a result their lives won't continue to be discarded so carelessly. So that's my takeaway.
I was an avid fan of Dr. Seuss in the day. (Good article, by the way!) My, how much we've become brainwashed. i quit drinking about four years ago, but my worst hangover pales in comparison to realization we all have been had. There's a lot of powerful people that adopted Adolf's technique to mold the masses to their will. I never gave it much thought, growing up, but even cartoons from the 40's and 50's (Warner Bros comes to mind) are unbelievably violent. The Cohen Bros could learn from the Warner Bros! Yea it's sad. For awhile there, I thought life was going to be "leave it to Beaver" or "Mayberry RFD". You gotta wonder, were the producer's intent to get violent when injustice prevails (psy-ops for war?) or an explanation (in parody) of the insanity of humankind? Or is it a wacky rerun of "I love Lucy" where crazy Hillary put's us through silly shenanigans and then we all make up and love her at the end? Not going to happen.
Dr. Seuss was a genius that, despite the continued reuse of his work, is far under appreciated. The story in question, "Horton Hears a Who," addresses many issues, some of which are subtle yet profound enough that many children will be reminded of them in later years of study and life experiences. I haven't yet seen the movie, so I cannot intelligently assess the merits [or lack thereof] of this film adaptation or the validity of Kareem's assertions, but I am so fond of the good doctor's work that I realize I am predisposed to defend it--so I will stop short of doing so.
My hope is that the success of "Horton Hears a Who" will spawn the financial backing for an adaptation of what I consider to be the doctor's finest work, "The Lorax." We have never needed the advice of that fiesty little creature more than we do today.
The Lorax exists on DVD as a 1972 short cartoon that Seuss himself wrote the teleplay for, and it's beautiful- it looks exactly as the kind doctor wanted it to, and it didn't have any of today's idiocy that passes as comedy.
Yes, I've seen the original, and may well look for it. But I am a fan of well-done 3D animation, and I believe the story could be easily expanded to contain more environmental content without harming the integrity of the original work.
I am not so sure about this, article. And while yes we have to be careful about what we expose our children's impressionable minds to, censoring a cartoon like this might be a bit excessive. If children even realize the subtext Kareem mentions and it influences their lives and future aspirations, they must be smart, and if they are smart enough to catch the subtext they should be smart enough to realize it's a cartoon.
It isn't necessary to consciously realize the sexist/racist subtext for it to promote a view. In fact if it were openly realizable it would negate much of its harm. The possibility that the writers/producers/director & cetera didn't notice what underlay the subtext would be a reasonable argument for the depth of the sexist/racist view that exists (sub-contextually) for them.
Not unlike my congressman Rep. Geoff Davis (dig the spelling) calling Sen. Barack Obama "That boy's...," Please search "Barack Obama" "Geoff Davis" for news of such.
(As a subtext, I've noticed that neither Barack nor Obama have yet been integrated into Huffpo's spellcheck. Interesting ploy?)
I think Kareem hit one of those sky hooks with his blog.
Kareem ---- maybe you can tell us about the sub-plot of the treatment of women in the Muslim world ---- you cant have it both ways -- you cannot criticize one, and not the other - there is no excuse to treat anyone as sub-human, none!
Dr. Suess is bad.....Khomeini good??? We do live in strange times.
Kareem, Great article ! Yes, girls will understand that they do not have as much value as the boy. Kind of the way I still feel when I go to Catholic church and see all the male leaders.
The way I feel when I look at the masthead of any large newspaper and notice that most of the writers are male.
The way I feel when I go on a job interview and notice that most of the executives are male.
I voted for Obama; it pained me greatly to vote against a female candidate, but Hillary voted for war and that's a deal breaker for me.
Yes it is true that the Catholic church is run by males. But a more important and timely observation is the Muslim religion's view of women. Musilm women don't even get to cheer on the sidelines.
Read the Q'uran. See what happens in country controlled by strict Muslim religion. It is being slowly injected into western culture through the guise of tolerance. Oppose it and your labled a bigot at the least, killed in some cases.
What happens when you criticize Catholic's?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
