|
|
May 25, 2013
|
|
A Ginger’s Response to M.I.A.Posted on Apr 27, 2010
I am a ginger. There, I said it. And yes, I do look different from all the other white people out there with my auburn-colored hair and recessive genes. When I walk down the street I do get looks, with eyeballs staring and young faces turned upwards in amazement. And yes, I have seen M.I.A.’s latest music video/ginger-pocalypse, “Born Free,” in all its nine-minute, banned-from-YouTube glory. But no, I didn’t like it. And no, it’s not for the reason you’re thinking. For those of you all who haven’t seen it (please do, embedded below), it goes something like this: Somber military/policemen (it’s unclear) drive over a desolate bridge in Los Angeles at dawn, pull up to an apartment building, bust past a person of color doing drugs, and arrive at an apartment where two quite unappealing white people are making love. They beat them mercilessly, enter an adjoining unit, beat another guy with added vigor, enter a third unit and pull out a defiant red-haired teenager, grabbing him by the jacket and taking him back to their idling vehicles. Instead of what you might think—this lanky fellow committed a crime and these goons are just over-eager to use their batons and brute force (imagine that!)—the red-haired boy walks into the back of a bus filled with a dozen other eumelanin pigment-deficient youths. This moment is the ginger equivalent to The Prodigy’s “Smack My Bitch Up” (embedded below), a video from 1997 shot from the perspective of what we assume could only be a violent, drug-induced male jackass, who turns out to be ... ta-da ... a woman. If only M.I.A.‘s video would have ended at this point. Instead, these red-haired youths are driven down the street only to pass by a pro-ginger militant mural and three ginger youths, poised with red and white keffiyehs (the stylist for the shoot must have been in love with Urban Outfitters for stocking these), who subsequently chuck rocks at the passing caravan. The Palestinian parallels continue as the ill-fated red-haired crew is bused to an unidentified desert location where the gingers are loudly ordered to get off the bus. After a bit of unsure resistance by our lanky teen, they all do, lining up horizontally on the dirt with their hands on their heads. They are told to run into a barren field, but no one moves. One military/police pulls out a gun and points it at a young boy’s red locks. No one moves. He pulls the trigger. The dead boy falls as the others begin to run, with Hollywood explosions littering the scenery, which looks like Southern California’s answer to the DMZ. Eventually all the gingers, including our original protagonist, perish amidst severed limbs and flailing batons. I get it. This can happen to anyone. A friend of mine suggested that the video is challenging our worldview by showing Palestinians as Irish-American kids. Fair enough. Others connect the violence to the struggle of ethnic Tamils in M.I.A.’s native Sri Lanka. The video could refer to just about any group that has been singled out. Difference is created by human beings, as Rwanda’s Tutsi and Hutus were phrenologically separated, with Hutu noses flat and wide and Tutsi noses long and slender. Indigenous folks in Mexico “look” different than Spanish-blood mestizos. Women, who just happen to have ovaries, are weak (we are told), while men, with their penises and all, are strong. But there’s something about these examples that seems real to me while our ginger-cide remains a bit hollow, a tool to show us how ridiculous it is to discriminate, especially based on pigmentation (yes, we’re talking to you, Arizona), facial structure, or genitalia. The reason I think the video doesn’t work is that discrimination isn’t about what’s underneath our swimsuits or why my nose looks like Cardinal Richelieu’s while another person’s may look like an actual button. Discrimination is about real, historical inequalities that use difference to justify disparity. Our red-haired foray into the phenomenon of prejudice and intolerance significantly decontextualizes the struggles of the Palestinians or Tamils, if we want to read those conflicts into M.I.A.’s video. Instead of the fact that the Palestinians have been jerked around, with their land occupied and their society colonially administrated for centuries, we relay their plight with some metonymic magic to prove how unreal and unjustified violence is. But is it the same thing to tell a story of oppression with not-so-oppressed groups of people, just to let those of us who aren’t in some discriminated-against minority know that it’s not just for people to be treated that way? What political or cultural work does substituting red-haired people for actually-oppressed people really do? I don’t want to be curmudgeonly, and I also don’t want to dismiss the reprehensible attacks that have happened in high schools against people with red hair. Nor do I want to appear to be a purist, declaring “how dare you!” to M.I.A. for meddling in the world of “real oppression.” I think the video is smart, and I think it does make people think differently, much like The Prodigy did, and much like any ending with a twist. But does thinking differently, or acknowledging the baselessness of oppression, help us better understand conflict? The collective outrage that we shared when we learned that Matthew Shephard was killed for being gay should not be handled with the same tepid pacifism that a schoolteacher sternly suggests to two feuding classmates: “Stop doing that.”
1
2
NEXT PAGE >>>
Advertisement Previous item: Latinos in the Limelight Tweet About Arizona’s Immigration Law Next item: Lady Gaga, Sarah Palin, Bill Clinton Make Time’s Power List for 2010 New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
By direwolf, May 4, 2010 at 9:50 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
i like how the article refers to the video as “M.I.A’s” video. Its an M.I.A song playing, but i’m pretty sure the artistic direction of the video came from the DIRECTOR of the video, Garvas. Which, that taken into account, makes the thing make a whole lot of sense. Watch his video he did for “Stress” by Justice, same sort of abstraction about society. Whether or not it resonates with you on a real political level or whatever, its still a wicked video. I think that’s why people should like or dislike it.
Report thisBy diman, April 29, 2010 at 6:16 am Link to this comment
The video and its makers are gutless, why didn’t they put arab looking youngsters in their video to make it truly original and a real protest against oppression.
Report thisBy Earthling, April 29, 2010 at 4:27 am Link to this comment
Were the non-armored persons appearing in the video presented in a different guise, we couldn’t distinguish this video from one reporting on a state of war or on some state of society.
So, I don’t understand the offense that so many people seem to have taken to the video. If these folks are like me and reside in one of the world’s many societies, then, like me, most likely, to some extent they are morally responsible for the kinds of atrocities the video shows.
In any case, I couldn’t hear much music at all in the video, and, therefore, don’t think it is a very successful MUSIC video. So, I don’t really get it…..
Report thisBy P, April 28, 2010 at 5:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I have to disagree with this article on a couple of grounds:
A) The sort of detailed contextualization the author is calling for cannot take place in space of a music video. Just as the author accuses the director of lacking historical context, we can accuse the author of lacking any eye to popular cultural context. This is a music video, ... See Morenot a four hour film.
B) The director obviously used Gingers precisely to decontextualize the violence depicted because, and this is what historicists will deny to their graves, there is a dimension of power that is not contextual or historical but is precisely universal and generic. Hence, the director’s use here and in his other videos of people of color in the positions of police and military. The video is suggesting that State power is structural and thus pliable to different geopolitical contexts.
C) If the depicted target of this violence is, in a sense, abstract. It is concretely identified as the working/underclass, a global poor.
D) The author misses the one bit of “context” that the director drives home time and time again. Whoever these “men with guns” are, they are representatives of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -ie. global capitalist imperialism. And this is where the author is off base entirely. This is not ultimately a video about the suffering of victims; the victims are, to a certain extent, presented as an abstract category. Rather, this is a video about The United States of America.
Report thisBy bran, April 28, 2010 at 4:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I think the message is a lot simpler, and echoes the calls of warning Mr. Hedges has been issuing on his columns:
The kinds of fascist police state images and atrocities M.I.A is depicting can happen in the U.S., and we’re fooling ourselves if we think blindly trusting in the establishment is going to do something constructive to alleviate the structures that are already in place that can allow such a dark fate to befall us.
She’s not depicting opression of “gingers;” she’s depicting government-sponsored terror. What’s done to the “gingers” is as much a part of her message as the poor people whose lives were violated during the terrorizing police raids.
Report thisBy diamond, April 28, 2010 at 4:00 pm Link to this comment
Writer on the Storm, the Israeli oppressors are not racially identical to the Palestinians. In fact, most of the Israeli settlers are of European descent and a lot of them have American accents. They are not Arab, they are not Middle Eastern people and you would have to go back thousands of years to find any links at all. The entire defense of their appropriation of the land they have taken is based on founding a theocracy, an ideology of racial and religious superiority, a feeling of grievance and entitlement to compensation and an expansionist religio/political agenda, not on shared race or even a shared history. Their discrimination against the Palestinians and all Muslims has now morphed into the war on terror in an attempt to make discrimination against Muslims global.
But you don’t need to focus on the differences: look at Rwanda where both sides were black, or at the Bosnian war where the Muslims were blonde, blue eyed and indistinguishable physically from their tormentors, rapists and torturers. As were many of the Jews in the concentration camps in World War II. The Muslims of the Balkans were the same people as the Serbs and the Croats: the only difference was that they has converted to Islam under Turkish rule. The Serbs also attacked and killed the Croats and in that case they were the same people with the same Christian religion EXCEPT that the croats were part of the Russian orthodox church and had a different alphabet.
In the final analysis hatred, intolerance and egomania are the problems as well as the political uses to which they can be put. As in Arizona where a law has now been passed that would have made Hitler proud and which makes redhead-style discrimination a reality. Discrimination is really just a particularly nasty and disastrous version of the blame game you can see in any kindergarten and which some people never outgrow.
Report thisBy Géza Éder, April 28, 2010 at 1:57 pm Link to this comment
@Samson: Don’t be dense, it’s a pretty simple and meaningful statement. Just like in Hungary, we have rich romani and poor ones, and rich whites and poor ones, it still makes sense to say that “romani are poor”; we also have white people who aren’t racist against them and those that are, but it still makes sense to say that white Hungarians in general are at least somewhat racist against them.
As for the video, it’s mostly meaningless sensationalism, based on cheap, generic emotional manipulation. It’s intelligent in the same way that a TV ad is intelligent: it is efficient and effective in manipulating you to get some kind of emotional high, while not really saying anything except generalities.
Everyone feels they know that evil is evil. The video found a theoretical form of evil that most people can understand and identify with, without reminding people that sometimes, most of the time, we’re also responsible for other people’s suffering. You can watch it and feel generally good because you’re not like that and so on, or philosophize about how evil the world is etc etc.
It also takes no real risks, as noone will be able to identify with the “bad” side, the pure textbook nazis, they’re incomprehensible, simplistic evil guys. “Discrimination is bad” - you don’t fucking say. Show me how I’m discriminating against other people if you’re an artist, or reference real history or something, otherwise it’s just a trick.
Report thisBy ann, April 28, 2010 at 10:25 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
i agree with your points, but i think it’s made to show how easily (and ridiculous) it is to discriminate. i think by using red-heads, it strengthens the ridiculousness and absurdity of discriminating against someone unlike you. i think the political value of the video decreases with the use of red-heads, but maybe that wasnt the
Report thispoint?
By Gordy, April 28, 2010 at 10:05 am Link to this comment
Nice balanced write-up and I agree that the political
Report thisstatement could be a lot more penetrating even if it is
a good song.
By Petro, April 28, 2010 at 9:35 am Link to this comment
Good points, diamond.
Report thisBy WriterOnTheStorm, April 28, 2010 at 9:34 am Link to this comment
More often than not, what we call racism is more properly culturalism—an urge
to “protect” ones culture from outside influences which manifests in hatred and
violence. Race is often associated with culture, a coincidence that leads to a
semiotic short circuit, a cognitive bait and switch if you will, in which race becomes
the mistaken locus of our cultural identity.
Just take the time to notice, and you might see that racially integrated people are
really just the ones who walk and talk like those with whom they have integrated.
Racially, the Palestinians are nearly identical to their Israeli oppressors, so at best,
Report thisthe Ginger metaphor is just lazy visual shorthand. And unfortunately, this kind of
laziness usually fans the flames.
By eib, April 28, 2010 at 7:21 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The men who degrade are not entitled.
Report thisThey are degraded and devalued first.
And whatever privilege they may secure from their brutality is empty solace.
Do people really want to live such that they spend most of their time in pain and only a small part in solace?
When does life get off the pain and solace merry-go-round?
By diamond, April 28, 2010 at 1:18 am Link to this comment
I hope you’re not all as shallow and obtuse as your posts make you out to be but I fear I will be disappointed yet again. The point of this music video is the same point made in the documentary ‘Blue Eyed’, where a sociologist showed how easily a group of brown eyed people could be encouraged to discriminate against a group of blue eyed people. The effect on the blue eyes was devastating: it was the first time in their lives they had ever been confronted with how it feels to be singled out for discrimination and some of the brown eyes were shocked at how easy it was to become the master race and to behave accordingly. As for what occurs in this video: American forces have been doing exactly this to Muslims for the last ten years and the Israelis have been doing this to Muslims for 60 years. Wake up and face the truth. Or is that why it was banned? Just a little bit too close to the bone? Too confronting for Americans and others in the Coalition of the Willing to bear? Banning things doesn’t make them invalid or untrue and the mere fact that it was banned shows that it is disturbing and confronting: the way genocide and ethnic cleansing should be.
Report thisBy footnote, April 27, 2010 at 10:48 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Missing the point guys.
The video is portraying authority…normal social democratic authority…the type we are taught to never question, engaging in house raids, targeting those who have been profiled and inflicting terror on them. Do you think that ‘our’ authorities would be incapable of mine clearing in the way shown? Do you think that ‘our’ authorities would be incapable of mindless murder?
Shock, horror. News just in. It’s not about Palestinians any more than it’s about child soldiers in the Congo or any other identifiable group.
It’s about authority. And it’s about the potential expression of authority.
Report thisBy Petro, April 27, 2010 at 6:52 pm Link to this comment
I have to admit that, after watching, the video is too amateurish to move one emotionally. The “retro” gas masks were cool, I guess, but I think they hurt themselves with this sort of hipness-reaching. Not that that’s the only reason - they somehow found a way to make the gore cartoonish *and* unpleasant.
Report thisBy Petro, April 27, 2010 at 5:26 pm Link to this comment
Good post - I think you are thinking about this in exactly the right way. Nothing wrong with shorthand protest, but it shouldn’t distract one from the substantive scrutiny of the particular issues, and the potential particular remedies.
“los gingerinos (if you’re not into the whole brevity thing)”
OK, that was funny.
Report thisBy Samson, April 27, 2010 at 3:34 pm Link to this comment
“That has lead to a sense of entitlement in those of light skinned people. That sense of entitlement continues to be a major source of racism today. “
Yes, I’m sure everyone in Appalachia feels so entitled.
Nothing at all knowing like you’ve been born to a life in a tar paper shack and that the only job you’ll have a chance at is that of a private in the army. Maybe you can die in a coal mine disaster if you are really fortunate and make the grade to get the ‘good’ job. Its so wonderful to be born a white person and therefore entitled to such great privilege.
Saying that all white people have a sense of privilege is prejudice. If you said ‘some white people have a sense of privilege.’, then you might be ok. But not every white person is a Harvard grad. Its incredibly sloppy thinking to suggest otherwise. If you doubt this, then go drive around Appalachia. Or if that’s too far away, I’m guessing you can find some poor white trailer trash near you that don’t feel terribly privileged.
Just because there are some rich white jerks who seem to own everything, don’t make the mistake of somehow thinking that all white people come from such privilege.
Report thisBy Wren, April 27, 2010 at 10:40 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
@DasBoot
“...let’s be honest, the struggle for white people to keep living with privilege.”
“Let’s be honest, I have no idea why such an idiotic sentence crept into an otherwise laudable article about the underlying social and economic issues that produce individual and collective racism.”
You would have to understand the origins of race and racial based slavery. Like this article tries to make clear, you have to understand the origin of the prejudice and not just the excuses for its continued existence. Race was invented to easily identify slaves. That has lead to a sense of entitlement in those of light skinned people. That sense of entitlement continues to be a major source of racism today.
Report thisBy Orbis Unum, April 27, 2010 at 9:30 am Link to this comment
While I found this article succinctly articulated in it’s surmising presumptions, it fails to clearly suggest any solution oriented Science of Right Reasoning to State a Claim for which Relief can be Granted, against the backdrop of Political Standing to say otherwise. Having said otherwise, by those with Political Standing, I venture to query the enterprising sort, if at all possible, how does having one’s word heard merit any value without Political Standing to say otherwise? And, being the enterprising sort (that is to test “all” things by the Science of Right Reason), how does one acquire Political Standing? Since being the enterprising sort and knowing the answer to the query, one wishes only to venture forth in hopes of finding cognitive awareness and the honor to justly state the matter as succinctly articulated rather than by surmising presumptions!
Report thisBy charles, April 27, 2010 at 9:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
the music is among the worst I have ever heard….
Report thisthe video does what everyone tries to do nowadays, shock you. by showing the killings, etc.
seems like the only way to attract attention is to shock the audience.
that is just plain wrong.
the way in which the audience should be attracted is by quality. by quiality of sounds, quality of image…
by art.
not by trying to be more nasty, more explicit than anyone else.
By Jesse, April 27, 2010 at 8:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Right - Musician/entertainer, not social scientist. The song rocked, the visuals were stimulating and nowhere near as filthy and violent as many video games being played by very impressionable people. It is most certainly there for publicity, and the media is obliging nicely. Good job!
Oh yeah, I’m guessing just by context that the kid who gets shot was a boy.
Report thisBy mcthorogood, April 27, 2010 at 8:15 am Link to this comment
Possible roots for racism?
God created human beings in her own image.
Report thisPeople see an image of god in the mirror each morning.
When people look upon each other, they don’t always recognize God.
By reynolds, April 27, 2010 at 7:08 am Link to this comment
w o w
Report thisBy DasBoot, April 27, 2010 at 6:40 am Link to this comment
“...let’s be honest, the struggle for white people to keep living with privilege.”
Let’s be honest, I have no idea why such an idiotic sentence crept into an otherwise laudable article about the underlying social and economic issues that produce individual and collective racism.
Your criticism seems misplaced to me. You are blaming musicians for not being social scientists. In contrast to you I did not like the music, but I see that M.I.A. use the medium they have at their disposal. Do you want them to publish books instead?
Report this