Tag Archives: Social

A Very Bad Introduction to Shipping Culture on Tumblr

(Update, 16 Oct. 2018: Literally the week after I wrote this, Symbrock (Venom) flew in and directly dethroned Klance from the #1 spot on the Fandometrics Top 20 Ships list for the week ending on the 15th of October. Needless to say this has completely destroyed the theories I formulated below. I am in shock, to be honest, but here is my original analysis nevertheless; I just needed to share the fact that this development hit me like a freight train and I have not recovered.)

(Disclaimer: I am not a shipper. I am viewing this as an outsider, which will skew my perspective. Nevertheless, I tried to take advantage of this and have an objective stance on each discussed fandom/ship. A.K.A., I share my observations and try to avoid making commentary on it. Apologies if I fail. Also, I am using Terms That Will Be Capitalized That Are Not Actually Used In The Language Of Fandom; this is mostly for my benefit.)

Shipping is a huge part of fandom culture. In regards to a fandom’s popularity in relation to their ships, the most popular fandoms on Tumblr often fit relatively into three categories:

    1. Fandoms driven into popularity by a singular ship
    2. Fandoms driven into popularity by multiple ships
    3. Fandoms whose ships are driven by their popularity

Most commonly, there is one “primary ship” that encompasses a large portion of a fandom, followed by a “secondary ship”, although nearly all fandoms can fit into this dynamic if we really wanted.

We’re not gonna really do that though. Let’s instead look at individual fandoms, starting with fandoms at their peak during the early 2010’s gay shipping craze. The fandoms of Merlin, Shadowhunters, and Teen Wolf, from what I’ve seen, consist nearly entirely of Merthur, Malec, and Sterek, and these Singular Power Ships are what drive the fandoms to the top. (Hannibal, actually, can also be worth mentioning seeing how much the Hannigram ship has helped the fandom move forward, but Hannibal is a much broader fandom in terms of content and is a small enough fandom that I would not consider Hannigram a prominent enough ship to be considered a Singular Power Ship.)

In later years, Bellarke, from The 100, is another example of a ship gaining the power of a Singular Power Ship, but this is mainly because the show killed off Clarke’s lesbian lover, because, Bury Your Gays, so of course the Clexa ship had to sink, leaving Bellarke to rise to the top. Victuuri, from Yuri on Ice, was also widely discussed, especially after the ship was explicitly shown to be canon on the show.

All these shows had secondary ships, but there was generally a single ship that most of the fandom talked about.

Of course, the Three Fandom Princes of Tumblr would have to be brought up at this point as well: Supernatural, with the Singular Power Ship of Destiel (helped perhaps by secondary ships such as Sabriel, which I believe to have replaced Wincest over the years for hopefully obvious reasons); Sherlock, with the Singular Power Ship of Johnlock; and Dr. Who, which is simply a powerful fandom on its own without a distinguished ship to associate with the fandom.

Dr. Who, however, is an exception in being a popular fandom without a powerful ship. Harry Potter and Star Wars are also examples of the exception. (Reylo can count as a Singular Power Ship, but this relationship does not drive the fandom, although it helps a lot.)

Usually, when a fandom rises to a place on Fandometric’s Top 20 lists, this will also push the ships within the fandom to the top. BTS, for example, is one of Tumblr’s most powerful fandoms, yet does not have a particular Singular Power Ship. The ships are powerful for sure, but this appears to mainly be due to the sheer size of the BTS fandom. There are no ships that make up more than 40% of the fandom’s content, not even a Common Arrangement of multiple ships. (Common Shipping Arrangements can take form as something as large as EXO’s six most popular pairings, or as simple as shipping Voltron’s Klance along with Adashi because they complement each other, as opposed to Klance and Sheith, which is bound to clash.)

This is interesting given Tumblr’s history with bandom shipping, particularly with the Three Bandom Princes of Tumblr (MCR, Panic! at the Disco, and Fall Out Boy – all of which I’m pretty sure are still going strong despite the gradual overtaking by The Kpop Community).

BTS falls in contrast to Voltron: Legendary Defender, whose popularity is in large part due to their ships instead of vice versa. Of course, with their wide array of characters, they have quite their share of well-liked secondary ships, be it Shallura, Plance, Heith, Lotura, or honestly literally any pairing of characters ever except Klance and Sheith, which are the primary ships. Both Klance and Sheith have the prominence of Singular Power Ships; in fact, they are two of the top pairings on Tumblr, which may be in part due to the in-fandom fighting between the ships: the more fans argue about the two ships, the more discussed they are, the more they climb up Fandometric’s Top 20 list.

Fighting between ships is normal, but is extremely widespread in the Voltron community due to the nature of the Sheith ship. Shiro is a grown man, in contrast to Keith who is 18, and the two have known each other since Keith was a very young teen. This dynamic is interpreted as inappropriate by many fans, but Sheith shippers believe that since Shiro and Keith are both technically adults, there should be no problem. Thus, many Klance shippers disapprove of Sheith shippers for supporting what they view as a relationship that is pedophilic in nature, and Sheith shippers believe no one should hate on anyone for shipping who they want to ship. Further driving this discourse is the fact that the showrunners have implicated intent to include LGBTQ+ representation in the show, causing fans to relentlessly dig through seasons in an attempt to dig up any evidence they can suggesting that their ship will become canon. Needless to say, it is no surprise the shipping among the Voltron fandom is such a widely discussed topic.

The Marvel fandom is quite similar to that of Voltron, except with more emphasis on individual actors and familial head canons between characters. Marvel and Voltron are both worlds with a large number of (mainly male) characters, allowing lots of shipping and attracting many fans. Stucky and Stony are ships comparable to Klance and Sheith; although, in the case of Marvel, the brotherly dynamic (Stucky) overpowers the rivalry dynamic (Stony), while in the Voltron fandom, Klance is more popular than Sheith.

Another difference is that Marvel fans are generally aware of the impossibility of their ship becoming canon, and, as a live-action franchise, much of the Marvel fandom on Tumblr does center around the actors. There is also a lot more discussion of the familial relationships between the characters with the father-son dynamic between Tony Stark and Peter Parker, sibling relationships between T’challa and Shuri as well as Thor and Loki, and the general family-like relationship between the Avengers and Fury.

The wlw shipping community is significantly smaller and less dramatic but still quite loud concerning canon lesbian couples. Steven Universe (Pearlrose), Adventure Time (Bubbline), Supergirl (Sanvers), Wynonna Earp (Wayhaught), and Avatar: the Last Airbender (Korrasami) are all shows with canon wlw couples that everyone likes, although strangely, the most popular ship from Supergirl is not Sanvers, but rather Supercorp. There isn’t much to say about wlw shipping because it’s generally very non-problematic. The negativity in the wlw community is generally not pointed toward each other, but rather the showrunners/cast for their mistakes (Supergirl @Comic Con 2017 anyone?). As mentioned previously, Clexa was another wlw ship that is no longer running, and the show creators were highly criticized for what they chose to do with the relationship. For most of these fandoms, the popularity is driven by the ships.

Other popular fandoms:

  • Boku no Hero Academia: BNHA is a strong both as a fandom and in shipping, but I’m not familiar enough with this show to make a comment on it; however, my observations suggest the behavior of this fandom is most similar to Marvel and maybe Voltron.
  • Phandom: I’m pretty sure the Phandom is basically entirely Phan content whether the shipping is platonic or not because the dynamic between Dan and Phil is basically the reason for most of their fans.
  • Overwatch: I don’t know what goes on in this fandom except for copious amounts of love for the diversity of this game, but I have seen shipping among the playable characters, though not anything particularly noteworthy.
  • The Royal Animation Children: The Royal Animation Sisters – Adventure Time, Steven Universe, Avatar – now have three younger siblings: Voltron, The Dragon Prince, and Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug and Chat Noir. I have already discussed Voltron in great detail; The Dragon Prince doesn’t provide much to discuss, as it hasn’t given much material to work with. Miraculous Ladybug has a pretty basic shipping base considering everyone ships the same thing with a couple side ships; however, the relationship between the two main characters is so nuanced because of the multiple identities that this potentially powerful primary ship has never gotten very far ahead.
  • The Good Place: This jumped on the Top 20 list very high very fast, and I have no idea what the shipping culture is. But from what I’ve seen, people just generally ship anything and it basically works, and from the seasons I’ve watched that checks out so basically I’m pretty sure this is one of those free-for-all shipping fandoms.

In general, it appears that shipping is most powerful with canon wlw couples and with franchises with large, heavily male-dominated casts. For ultimate power, promise LGBTQ+ content and deliver as little as possible. For non-platonic shipping, large casts with family dynamics is where it succeeds. Most of this is quite intuitive.

All that being said, I should probably emphasize that I have a limited experience in terms of fandom, so I have probably excluded many fandoms, including Andi Mack, the Land of Youtubers, and whatever miscellaneous stuff I overlooked. Also, I DO have an opinion about a lot of these, but like I said, I am trying to be neutral. Also, I am very likely misinformed about many of these fandoms. But, from the perspective of the person who wrote this, this analysis is as accurate as can be.

Video Game Review: Butterfly Soup

Today’s entertainment review is going to be on the visual novel “Butterfly Soup”!

Short:

High-class memery and relatable gay asian girls playing baseball? It’s already A+++.

Not-as-short:

This is literally my favorite thing in the world at a time when queer Asians just don’t exist in media. Let’s all bow down to our Lord Brianna Lei for creating this masterpiece.

First of all, the humor is such high quality! I mean, I don’t know about other people, but I found it freaking hilarious. Second of all, I am particularly attached to this game because it hits so close to everything I even though I don’t even like baseball. Being a queer Asian girl in the Bay Area finding something with pretty much this precise demographic that’s never portrayed in media ever? Damn miracle. I can discuss media representation in another post, but for now let me just discuss the representation in Butterfly Soup, because I relate to and love every single one of them. Here is a list of similarities between me and the characters:

Diya:

  • Extremely shy
  • Content to sit near louder friends and listen to them talk instead of joining in
  • Have a morning routine of lying in bed for ten minutes being tired
  • Avoid confrontation like the plague
  • Hearing problems. I can’t actually claim this, I’m just bad at auditory processing
  • Weak immune systems from sleep deprivation
  • Don’t talk to parents much because everything becomes a lecture or criticism
  • Male-dominated interests that people just have to comment on

Min-seo:

  • Likes weapons, should not be using them (for different reasons)
  • Loves Diya
  • Short hair
  • Short
  • Tiny hands
  • Emo music
  • Uncomfortable doing “girly” things, has rejected gender roles since child
  • Parents disapprove of said rejections
  • Kind of dumb sometimes
  • Uses profanity incorrectly
  • Hates most vegetables, salad, and standalone tomatoes

Akarsha:

  • Extremely weird
  • Says things that don’t make sense
  • Is the “annoying” and “ugly” one in the friend group
  • Forgets to return things
  • Parents excessively brag about intelligence
  • Doesn’t feel smart
  • Stressed out and feels pressured by parents, copes by making jokes
  • Feels lost, doesn’t mind dying
  • Accidentally killed a small animal in elementary school
  • Likes junk food

Noelle:

  • Parental expectations
  • Too weak to open water bottles
  • Bad at sports
  • Not very social
  • Takes a long time to get to really know and consider interesting
  • Likes classical music
  • Appreciates math (!!!)
  • Weak immune systems from sleep deprivation

In general there was just so much to relate to, especially with the Asian American household experience – the traditional and conservative values, the insane pressure from parents to be successful, the unspoken culture of getting hit, the smart-but-not-smart-enough kids at the bottom of the top, the generational gap in the experiences of Asian parents and children in the U.S., and the distance that creates. Other than that, the game references real gender-related experiences I’ve had as a female with non-feminine interests and behavior. And the game manages to deal with all this while being extremely funny.

Anything else I think of will be added later. Nevertheless, Butterfly Soup is an amazing game that I would recommend to anyone even remotely gay, female, or Asian. You can download it here for free, but honestly, please donate if you can because she deserves it! I wanted to donate so bad, but my dad can see everything I do with my credit card, so please, someone donate for me! Because if there’s any game I’d pay to play, this would be the one.

Etiquette and Appearance

There are some things that different people will have extremely skewed opinions of, and yet both sides can be easily understood with some thought. One of these things is etiquette and appearance (this is technically two things, but they go hand-in-hand).

For some people, appearance is everything. It is a reflection of yourself, and the most important thing is to dress appropriately. The way you carry yourself tells others a lot about you; your self-confidence, how well you take care of yourself, how much you value your interaction with the person in front of you, etc.

But for lots of others, appearance means nothing. Not only are some people unable to afford nice clothes and such, but all-in-all, the way you look outwardly does not affect your inner self in the slightest. For these people, appearance and attire are superficial and irrelevant, and is a poor depiction of the kind of person you truly are.

Many people are extreme in one of these beliefs, and either way you think about it, they both make a lot of sense. Yet, these ideas are in complete opposition.

In a similar vein of thought, politeness is the key to social interaction. Politeness is how you demonstrate consideration and respect. No matter how opposed you are to others, you must be cordial to everyone. It’s impartial and respectful, and keeps emotions out of the equation. Rudeness, for them, is despicable; it’s dismissing the existence and feelings of others, and downright unprofessional and disrespectful.

For others, however, politeness is disingenuous and unnecessary. It may be snobbish, false intrigue, and superficial. Some people prefer to be straightforward and blunt. Some are aloof with everyone save for those close to them. Some don’t understand the unspoken rules of proper etiquette. And sometimes, we are absent-minded, in a hurry, or in a bad mood, and we either forget to be polite or don’t have the energy to do so. In sum, strictly social scripts are insufficient in running society, and politeness is not a good indicator of the kind of person you really are.

So we have two completely opposing sides here: the first is that good appearances and good manners reflect good attitude. It indicates that the person values their interaction with the person in front of them, and that effort has been put into this interaction. The second is that appearances and etiquette cannot possibly reflect a person’s inner self, and that they are not something we should focus on too much.

Of course most people align somewhere in the middle grounds in regards to how much they value politeness and appearance. But much of society, especially those of higher social class, will lean towards intense contempt for those who have the audacity not to make an effort in their appearance and manners or conversation. And honestly, it really isn’t something they can be blamed for.

At the end, the best mindset to take is a nice route down the middle. In professional environments, try your best to respect your colleagues, and pay a little more attention to your clothes and diction. Outside the job, still try to speak nicely to others. Don’t stress too much about how you look or act, but make sure everyone receives the respect they deserve.

Essay: The Importance of Storytelling (‘The Things They Carried’ Synthesis Essay)

There is a story of a city known as Omelas which appears to be the happiest place on Earth. The city is prosperous, and its citizens, who are intelligent and mature, celebrate the first day of summer with a grand festival. It seems perfect, except for one aspect that all who have reached the age of adolescence are aware of: one child, locked in an unbearable, filthy closet setting with barely any food or kind words, suffering for the happiness of everyone else. Most are shocked and ponder for a while after learning of this, and choose to accept this social contract, continuing their happy lives in Omelas with the knowledge of the child’s existence. The others, after whom the story is named, walk away from Omelas forever, unable to come to terms with this moral paradox. The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas by Ursula K. Le Guin describes different reactions to a shocking revelation: those who tell themselves the cold, hard truth; those who accept the dilemma as a necessary trade; and those who imagine that the child is not there, pretend that no one needs to suffer in exchange for their happiness. They tell different stories to deal with the knowledge of the child, some that simply convey facts, some that help escape reality, and others that justify a decision or cause guilt. It is not only people in fictional works who use storytelling for these reasons. Real people, especially soldiers experiencing or having experienced war, turn to storytelling for many different reasons. Whether to relieve us of a burden, to provide comfort, or any other reason, storytelling serves a much broader purpose than merely conveying facts.

One important purpose of storytelling is to release our memories and ideas and relieve ourselves of a burden. Many soldiers struggle with sharing their experiences with someone. One such soldier is Norman Bowker in The Things They Carried, who wanders aimlessly around town upon return from war and comments that “the place looked …still and lifeless… the town could not talk, and would not listen. ‘How’d you like to hear about the war?’ He might have asked, but the place could only blink and shrug. It had no memory, therefore no guilt” (O’Brien 143). Bowker desperately wants someone to ask him about the war, but unlike him, the town had ‘no memory’ and ‘no guilt,’ providing no sympathy for Bowker. The ‘lifeless’ town had no human empathy for him and ‘would not listen.’ Without someone to talk to and release his experiences and guilt, Bowker feels lonely and not understood, and ends up committing suicide. Another veteran, Brandon Friedman, similarly recalls in an article called The End of War Stories that “when I left the Army after two combat tours, I couldn’t shut up about it. I had to put the memories somewhere. So many were toxic, and I needed to purge. I would tell stories to anyone who would listen” (Friedman). Friedman’s diction of “couldn’t shut up” as well as telling his stories to “anyone” conveys his desperation to have his stories be heard. Describing his memories as “toxic” further depicts them as something poisonous that he needs to “purge.” By writing them onto paper, he releases his toxic memories into stories, relieving him of the poisonous burden. Another article, How Art Heals the Wounds of War by Andrea Stone, explains that creating masks helps soldiers because “someone who has experienced trauma has a block that keeps them from verbalizing what they’ve been through… The mask gives them a way to explain themselves. The concrete image of the mask unleashes words… reintegrates the left and right hemispheres. Now they can discuss their feelings…” (Stone). War veterans experience a “block” that prevents them from formulating words and expressing themselves. By releasing their thoughts onto a mask, they are able to “unleash words”: they are able to “explain” themselves, to “verbalize” and “discuss their feelings.” Storytelling through art allows soldiers to release their trauma into a mask. Those carrying their burdens for too long can face a fate like Bowker’s; through these masks, however, soldiers who struggle because of untold experiences locked inside them can free them, releasing ill feelings of guilt, regret, loneliness, and trauma into the stories they tell through words or art.

Another purpose of storytelling is to help cope or deal with a difficult reality. While Norman Bowker and Henry Dobbins play checkers, O’Brien and the other soldiers enjoy watching because “there was something… orderly and reassuring [about the game]… the playing field was a strict grid… you could watch the tactics unfolding… there were rules” (O’Brien 32). The soldiers are drawn in by the “strict grid” of the checkerboard. O’Brien mentions the “tactics” of the game, directly comparing it to his current position in war. Checkers is “strict,” war is not; checkers is “orderly and reassuring,” war is not; in checkers, “there were rules”; in war, there are none. The soldiers watching the story of the checkerboard unfold are trying to grasp onto the hint of control they had back in the U.S.; the story Bowker and Dobbins create on the board allows them to escape the reality of war and find comfort in everything the war is not. O’Brien also uses storytelling to cope with the loss of a soul. Reflecting on his imaginations of Linda, who died when he was young, O’Brien reveals that “in the spell of memory and imagination, I can still see her as if through ice, as if I’m gazing into some other world… sometimes I can even see Timmy skating with Linda under the yellow floodlights… I’m skimming across the surface of my own history… and when I take a high leap into the dark and come down thirty years later, I realize it is as Tim trying to save Timmy’s life with a story” (O’Brien 245-246). In this metaphor, O’Brien skates on ice that reflects his memories and history. Through the ice, he can remember Linda; he can “still see her… as if [he’s] gazing into some other world.” By remembering Linda and imagining she’s still alive, it helps him cope with the reality that she’s dead, because to him, her soul is still alive. Thirty years later, as he recalls his past, he realizes he’s trying to preserve his younger self, his innocence; that “it is as Tim trying to save Timmy’s life with a story.” Through the ice, through his stories, imagination and memories, he can “save Timmy’s life” as well as everyone he has lost in the past. As demonstrated by O’Brien with Linda and the soldiers with the checkerboard, imagination and storytelling can help one escape reality or be comforted by a loss through the salvation of a soul.

By allowing us to release repressed thoughts and by providing comfort in times of need, storytelling proves itself to have a purpose beyond the communication of factual information. Just as the citizens of Omelas do, many soldiers need utilization of storytelling for letting go of a guilty conscience or to escape the realities of their surroundings. War veterans often return home struggling to release their experiences and share with someone who understands. Storytelling is then crucial in welcoming a soldier back from war: by empathizing, listening, realizing the true magnitude of war’s horrors, and providing a platform for veterans to express themselves, veterans will be able to relieve themselves of much burden and more comfortably reintegrate into society.

Works Cited

  • Friedman, Brandon. “The End of War Stories.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 21 Mar. 2013. Web. 02 May 2017.
  • Natchez, Jon, and Sarah Robbins. The Things They Carried: Tim O’Brien. New York, NY: Spark Pub., 2003. Print.
  • Stone, Andrea. “How Art Heals the Wounds of War.” National Geographic. National Geographic Society, 01 May 2017. Web. 02 May 2017.

Gummy’s Gum

Gummy’s smile no teeth all gum Gummy’s gummy bears hurt her gums Gummy sucks gumdrops sucks her thumbs sucks her gums Gummy just a child let her have some fun .Gummy

chews gum, bubble Bible branded gum Gummy pink red bubble gum bubble pop gum Gummy plick pluck at the goo on your lips with your thumb Gummy stick that gum back between your teeth between your gums .Gummy’s

boyfriend like Michael Bublé chews blue gum Gummy chews pink gum Gummy wants to chew blue gum blue Bublé bubble gum Gummy wants to plick pluck at the blue goo on her lips with her thumb Gummy wants to stick that blue gum blue Bublé bubble gum back between her teeth between her gums .(Gummy your boyfriend Michael is a bum Gummy your Michael Bublé is a dumb bum ,hon ,Gummy’s Michael Bublé chews blue gum) .but

Gummy think pink ink pink blades in the rink but Gummy pink lipstick plink plunk clink in the sink but Gummy it’s still sunny don’t pink jinx your kink; but Gummy you only have pink red gum Gummy pink red strawberry raspberry cherry berry bubble gum but Gummy you can shred red but not blue but Gummy keep your cherry a cherry is

Pure . but Gummy sewing red threads thimble numb on your thumb but Gummy you only have pink red bubble Bible gum Gummy you shed red cada mes a red mess but Gummy you should only hum Bible gum pop songs .Gummy

but some people named Gummy chew blue gum Gummy wants to be a Gummy who chews blue gum a Gummy who blows blue bubbles pops blue Bublé gum .Gummy under one sucked her own gums but Gummy fifteen-and-one wants to suck someone else’s gums (someone’s blue Bublé gum) .but

Gummy honey bun don’t be dumb but Gummy people who chew pink gum choose pink shoes Gummy Listen pink shoes tied up and laced pink bow in your hair toes pointed like a crow but Gummy you must glow but first keep your head low like a doe let your feet float as pink bubbles you blow and Gummy blue gum is a foe .Gummy

wants to play but Gummy you can’t play because Gummy your thumbs’ll fumble and tumble and you’re a punk who can’t punt because Gummy you can’t punt because you’re a runt because Gummy you’re a runt because you have a c— Gummy

red dim sum plump as a thumb Gummy red dumplings blood red as a drum Gummy why do you have purple bubble gum ?but Gummy brand purple gum ain’t brand Bible bubble gum (Gummy your dumb Bublé blue is a bum) but Gummy don’t you go blowin’ purple grapes with that gum .but

Gummy what good is a plum when you been smiling pink gum in your gums but Gummy Bible brand bubble gum says raspberry blue isn’t true but Gummy would you choose a musician over a God ?a God who only gives you Bible pink bubble gum .Gummy why so glum can’t you stick with his pick and chew Bible pink gum ?done

Gummy’s pink gum in her tum Gummy now blows (not) blue bubble gum Gummy yummy ruddy rum chases Bible gum down her tongue Gummy just a child let her have some fun Gummy has some fun chewing (not) blue gum blue Bublé bubble gum Gummy has some fun plick plucking sucking fucking her boyfriends gums Gummy

cherry red ruddy rum drumming in his tum Gummy are you proud you won ?proud your princess is (not) a son and Gummy blue plus blue equals red lips plump as a plum Gummy blue and blue don’t make red !don’t make rose bud red bloody dead in the mud Gummy what did you do Gummy ain’t no runt Gummy

has some fun rum-pum-pum of a gun and pops blue bubble gum

Vaccines Cause Autism???

“who are you?” she cried.

“i am the ghost of christmas future,” the figure said, sweeping an arm to reveal a scene, the woman crying over her dead son.

“oh no,” she said. “what happened?!”

“you happened,” the figure said, “when you refused to vaccinate your child because you’d rather your child be dead than have autism.”

the woman gasped, being thrust back into the present. “oh my god,” she weeped to her husband. “the vaccinators threatened to kill our child unless we give him autism!”

Movie Review: Crazy Rich Asians

Today’s entertainment review is going to be on the movie “Crazy Rich Asians”!

Short:

Asians. Thank you

Not-as-short:

I am so happy right now! The soundtrack! The costuming! The mahjong scene! Literally everything about Astrid! The second proposal! The wedding scene! The entire cast being Asian!

Not to be That Person, but this is our Black Panther – highlighting differences between the experiences of Africans/Asians versus African-Americans/Asian-Americans! Beautiful traditional African/Asian aesthetics! The portrayal of Africans and Asians on screen for young children to be proud of to be who they are! Showcasing the rich and vibrant parts of Africa and Asia that the American media forgets about! I know people are all “stop promoting Black Panther when talking about Crazy Rich Asians” but I don’t care. I think they’re comparable and Black Panther’s successful enough not to need promoting so I don’t see the issue.

On the whole “incomplete representation” issue, I am Chinese so I can’t say much about that; honestly, I think the fact that we have an Asian movie at all is a huge step, especially as it took place in an Asian country that wasn’t China, Japan, or Korea. But again, this is from the perspective of a Chinese-American. I understand how the film seems to reinforce the already prevalent Asian sentiment against dark skin, and I think being upset about the East Asians Only issue is perfectly valid (and I agree that it’s a problem). I don’t know much about Singapore, though I am aware of the racism issue and that the movie doesn’t exactly treat the issue well. Perhaps we could have gotten a better movie to “break” Asian culture into American theaters that wasn’t about the upper class specifically that’s comprised almost entirely of East Asians, but as a standalone movie I think it was pretty great! I just hope that future films will start introducing more and better Southeast Asian and other Asian representation, and hopefully Crazy Rich Asian viewers and Asians themselves don’t forget about the rampant racism in Asia.

(On a side note, I do realize that the original book has the n-word in it, but I haven’t read the book so I don’t have much to say about this except that the movie elected to exclude this and besides they don’t have to go hand-in-hand, especially when the movie doesn’t even follow the book that closely.)

I think the main thing that made viewers more wary of representation in Crazy Rich Asians than in Black Panther (besides the fact that – you know – Marvel) is that Wakanda is a fictional country. (Again, though – I am not black, so I can’t say much, but this is from what I’ve observed.) The creators could take liberty with each fictional tribe to reference as many different real-life tribes as possible while also including an important contrast between African and African-American experiences. Crazy Rich Asians, however, is pretty limited, especially when the Chinese are the ones in power in Singapore. Black Panther was made for black people in general, but Crazy Rich Asians is a specific kind of Asian attempting to represent, well, all Asians and Asian-Americans. The fact that the Asian-American experience was even a component of a movie about Asians from Asia is already fantastic to me, especially since Hollywood had wanted to whitewash Rachel’s character.

I also thought, as a female, that the female portrayals of Rachel and Astrid were wonderful! Of course the other female characters were your typical K-drama villainous exes that try to ruin the lives of less-rich girls dating hot rich males, but the male characters who weren’t the main character or the groom were also depicted in an equally negative light so I can let that go. And also – Rachel and Astrid are yes. It might not seem big in the movie but some aspects just really jumped out at me with the characterization of two fantastic, strong, Asian females.

Astrid, I think, is pretty straightforward. Her leaving Michael with their apartments to go live in one of her fourteen apartment buildings because it’s not her job to make him feel like a man? I felt that power through my bones.

The reason I like Rachel’s characterization is because when Rachel started standing up to herself, it was in a way that was consistent and unique to her character. Specifically, I am referring to two specific parts. One: the wedding scene, where she shows up dressed in confidence and uses her cleverness and intellect to talk her way to the front row. Two: the brilliant mahjong scene where she uses her economics and game theory expertise to purposely let Eleanor win before revealing that she had control over the game the whole time, that Eleanor only got Nick back because Rachel allowed it, permanently marking the Young family with her existence with her message, all without being spiteful or malicious and yet making it glaringly clear that she was the bigger woman in the situation. I also really appreciate the fact that Rachel rejected Nick in the first place. Again, Rachel is deciding everything at this point, and she’s the one who decided they wouldn’t go down that uproot-my-whole-life-for-heterosexual-romance route. She chose herself over love; she refuses to be one of those “me-or-them” girls, knowing how important Nick’s family is to him; she doesn’t just take the chance to marry Nick just as a victory to shove in Eleanor’s face. She’s respecting herself by not allowing herself to be treated this way by Nick’s family; she’s respecting Nick by choosing not to drive him away from his family; and she’s respecting Eleanor, refusing to back down before the latter’s disrespect. She accepts the second proposal because this is her earning Eleanor’s approval and respect for both herself and for Nick.

I also really like Eleanor’s character. She’s that typical traditional Asian parent we all know, but it’s not as shallow as the Asian drama cliche of “you can’t marry my son because you’re poor!” It’s beyond that. She sees her son falling into the same situation she and her husband was, and she tries to prevent him from that. But then she learns how strong Rachel is when she makes Eleanor realize that Rachel isn’t the one preventing Nick from having both Rachel and his family, it’s her. She’s the one preventing her son’s happiness. Man, this movie was great!

My general view of this movie is that this is a well-made, unapologetically Asian movie. Definitely not perfect, especially in viewers’ expectations for it to represent all Asians when the basic premise is about mostly-snobbish, filthy-rich Chinese folk in Singapore, but again, as a standalone rom-com with Asian context, I thought it was pretty nice!

Really do hope older Asians stop being racist though. Even living in the U.S. I know this is a problem. Even my parents are low-key racist. But Asian racism is a topic for another time, for now I’m just happy that the cinematic world knows Asian people don’t just exist as side characters. And besides, romantic comedies kind of owe Asians for the genre’s revival, sorry. Also, not gonna lie, I don’t really like romance, but apparently Silk is going to be a thing and I’ll have you know, I am beyond excited to have a female, Asian superhero movie! But I am definitely content with a Crazy Rich Asians.

Research Paper: Gun Violence (Problem-Solution Research Assignment)

Starting with Columbine in 1999, “more than 187,000 students attending at least 193 primary or secondary schools have experienced a shooting on campus during school hours” according to a Washington Post study (Cox). In fact, the study found “an average of 10 school shootings per year since Columbine, with a low of five in 2002 and a high of 15 in 2014.” This year alone, as of “less than three months into 2018, there have been 11 shootings, already making this year among the worst on record.” The presence of guns has become prominent recently with all the frightening events occurring in what are supposed to be safe areas for students to learn. While the news frequently covers mass shootings, the study only proves that large-scale schools shootings are only a fraction of the danger students face in regards to gun violence at school.

The public holds contradicting opinions regarding the main cause of gun violence in schools, but generally agree on several ideas. One cause of this issue that many accept to be true is mental illness. Sue Klebold is the mother of one of the infamous Columbine shooters that were the first in a series of increasing incidents resulting in deaths, injuries, and trauma due to guns in schools. She attributes the tragedy largely to her son’s mental illness and the lack of help he received for it. Dylan Klebold was plagued by suicidal thoughts before the shooting, and his mother laments that his “spiral into dysfunction probably occurred over a period of about two years, plenty of time to get him help, if only someone had known that he needed help and known what to do” (Klebold). Klebold’s main concern regards Dylan’s “desire to die” causing him to kill others along with him, noting that the estimated statistic that around one or two percent of suicides are murder-suicides, meaning that rises in suicide rates will lead to rises in murder-suicide rates (Klebold). Justin Nutt concurs that mental illness is a definitive factor in gun violence, explaining how anxiety, mood, personality, and psychotic disorders, and even particular symptoms such as mania, can lead to feelings of being alone, powerless, and hopeless, and impaired reasoning and lack of control: “mental health issues can compound things and lead to a feeling that the only option is to lash out at the world or that the only way one can show others how he or she feels is to show them or make them feel the pain being felt” (Nutt). Klebold elaborates on the failure of our mental health care system, as it “is not equipped to help everyone, and not everyone with destructive thoughts fits the criteria for a specific diagnosis. Many who have ongoing feelings of fear or anger or hopelessness are never assessed or treated” (Klebold). Malcolm Gladwell also cites other psychological abnormalities such as the autism spectrum, psychoticism, and psychopathy as a potential source of dangerous gun usage in school: John LaDue had Asperger’s and obsessed over guns and school shootings out of morbid curiosity; Kip Kinkel was psychotic and had delusions; Eric Harris, mastermind behind Columbine, was your textbook psychopath in manner, behavior, and self-perception (Gladwell).

A large part of the mental health aspect is bullying, which goes hand-in-hand with mental health, and it is also a universally agreed upon factor in school violence. While it doesn’t explain LaDue, Kinkel, or Harris, bullying can help us better understand Dylan Klebold, who “had experienced triggering events at the school that left him feeling debased and humiliated and mad. And he had a complicated friendship with a boy who shared his feelings of rage and alienation, and who was seriously disturbed, controlling and homicidal” (Klebold). Bullying can help us pinpoint the root of Dylan’s suicidal thoughts and explain his relationship with an individual such as Eric Harris who was “seriously disturbed, controlling and homicidal” and yet “shared his feelings of rage and alienation” enough to be able to convince Dylan to join him on a quest of vengeance, homicide, and self-destruction.

However, mental health is only a portion of the problem. While mental health is prevalent among shooters, one must realize that “researchers have consistently concluded that [psychological problems] seldom play a role in shootings or violence of any kind” and that most shooters “showed no signs of debilitating mental illness, such as psychosis or schizophrenia” (Cox). Klebold, despite discussing her son’s mental illness, acknowledges as well that “only a very small percent of those who have a mental illness are violent toward other people” (Klebold). Furthermore, defining school shootings by mental illness can be dangerous; the president of the American Psychological Association, Jessica Henderson Daniel, stated that “framing the conversation about gun violence in the context of mental illness does a disservice to the victims of violence and unfairly stigmatizes the many others with mental illness… More important, it does not direct us to appropriate solutions to this public health crisis” (Cox).

In fact, while Gladwell details the different kinds of mental illness present in many of the minds of those who attempt to hurt others, there are also social factors (besides bullying) that easily contribute to violence towards students and faculty. Much of it boiled down to “chaotic home life” (for example Evan Ramsey who lived an extremely itinerant and abusive upbringing), and “group behavior/threshold,” which explains how the existence of a group of humans can cause people to act a certain way or demonstrate a certain behavior, the behavior in this case being shooting up schools in salute to Columbine. Group threshold theory explains cases such as Darion Aguilar, someone who would never have had reason to pick up a gun before the examples set by Harris and Klebold. Aguilar is only part of overwhelming percentages of major school shootings both in and outside the United States after Columbine that either imitated, referenced, or took inspiration from Harris and Klebold (Gladwell). In regards to societal explanations for gun violence in schools, some people even goes as far as to point at the media as a contributor to this epidemic. The notoriety gained from school shootings, due to a fixation on the attacker instead of the victim, can encourage students who “feel nameless and as though no one will care or remember them when they are gone” to do something as drastic as a school shooting believing it will ensure their infamy and make sure they are remembered in history (Nutt). Gladwell’s group threshold theory holds well in relation with this with the outcome of Columbine and consequential spotlight on the shooters that inspires others to follow suit.

Ultimately, every shooter is different, and people are harmed by guns for different reasons. As Cox and Rich state, “there is no archetypal American school shooter. Their ranks include a 6-year-old boy who killed a classmate because he didn’t like her and a 15-year-old girl who did the same to a friend for rejecting her romantic overtures. They also come from backgrounds of all kinds” (Cox). Whether or not the assailant was bullied or had mental illness, each shooter has their individual background and motivation, ranging from obsession, sadism, suicidal desire, abuse, revenge, inspiration from literature and entertainment, or admiration for previous shooters (Gladwell). The incident could even have been unintentional, with students bringing firearms on campus for self-protection or curiosity. What all gun-related horror stories in school environments have in common, however, is that the gun-wielder was able to get ahold of guns without ringing any alarms. Thus, despite many relevant and viable causes for gun violence in schools, I believe that the main cause that ties all these reasons and incidents together is undeniably the terrifyingly easy access that students have to guns.

Home is, unfortunately, the most common source of guns for our youth to get their hands on. Nine kids are shot unintentionally in the U.S. on a daily basis, nearly all with a parent’s gun; nine hundred adolescents commit suicide annually, nearly all with a parent’s gun; two-thirds of school shootings, including Sandy Hook, utilize a parent’s gun (Gross). In one particular case, a boy found a pistol given from his father to his brother and brought it to his first grade class, where a girl picked it up and accidentally shot 7-year-old Gage Meche through the stomach. Gage now suffers from trauma and continuous physical pain, and the girl suffers from guilt and post-traumatic stress. Although it may be easy to blame parents for keeping guns in the house where kids can easily find them, Dan Gross’ TED talk reminds us that they aren’t bad people, “they’re just living with the unimaginable consequences of a very bad decision, made based on very bad information that was put into their minds by very bad people, who know good and well the misery that they’re causing, but just don’t care” (Gross). Due to unfortunate politics, many households wind up misinformed about their children’s safety regarding the guns that they believe are protecting the family. Even in households without guns, it is still shockingly easy for kids to obtain guns. Despite her emphasis on mental health and social issues, Klebold also notes that “on top of this period in his life of extreme vulnerability and fragility, Dylan found access to guns even though we’d never owned any in our home” (Klebold). Gross compares gun control to airport security, attesting that “thousands of gun sales every day at guns shows or online without… background checks, just like there shouldn’t be two lines to get on an airplane — one with security and one with no security” (Gross). Klebold further comments that “it was appallingly easy for a 17-year-old boy to buy guns, both legally and illegally, without my permission or knowledge. And somehow, 17 years and many school shootings later, it’s still appallingly easy” (Klebold).

The system that Gross introduces us to, Brady background checks, have prevented – over 20 years – “2.4 million gun sales to those people that we all agree shouldn’t have guns” (Gross), these “people” being “domestic abusers, convicted felons, mentally ill persons, and other dangerous individuals” that may harm others if wielding a firearm (“Effectiveness”). So why is there still so much accessibility to guns? One factor is the lack of research, and thus, sufficient awareness of the issue to incorporate appropriate policies. Cox and Rich explain that “the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stopped studying gun violence 22 years ago. At the time, the Republican-led Congress mandated that no CDC funds ‘may be used to advocate or promote gun control,’ language that, though vague, halted almost all study of gun violence” (Cox). Carvalho uses a more accusatory tone towards the corporate gun lobby having spent “billions of dollars blocking the CDC from doing research into the public health epidemic of gun violence… They’re desperate to hide the truth, because they view the truth as a threat to their bottom line” (Carvalho).

So what can be done? Improving our mental health care system is important and a frequently proposed solution, but it will mean little in the scheme of preventing gun violence with so many shooters absent of a diagnosable mental illness. Rather, using the power of community and information to convince government to take action is probably the best way to solve the issue. One of the lessons Carvalho takes from fighting drugs and gun violence is that “you need coalitions of the willing and of the unwilling to make change. In the case of drugs, we needed libertarians, anti-prohibitionists, legalizers, and liberal politicians. They may not agree on everything; in fact, they disagree on almost everything. But the legitimacy of the campaign is based on their diverse points of view” (Carvalho). Not only that, but the simple existence of such a group spreads information to the public and garners more support for the cause, which, if gains enough traction, will find its way to the government, as did Carvalho’s coalition: “within weeks, our national congress approved the disarmament bill that had been languishing for years. We were then able to mobilize data to show the successful outcomes of the change in the law and gun collection program… We could prove that in just one year, we saved more than 5,000 lives” (Carvalho). And according to Gross, unity is working regarding the issue for gun violence. After San Bernardino, the public began swarming Congress with demand for action, and soon enough, “we got a vote on a bill that nobody thought was going to see the light of day anytime soon. We’re seeing real movement to repeal some of the most evil, ugly gun lobby legislation passed over the last dark decade. The stranglehold of the gun lobby is clearly being broken” (Gross). While laws can’t solve everything, implementation and expansion of Brady background checks to a wider number of sales will save thousands of lives.

2018 started off tragic with significantly the most incidents yet, culminating decades of gun violence in schools starting with Loukaitis and popularized by Klebold and Harris. An educational environment is not one where students – and teachers – should have to be constantly afraid and cautious. Fortunately, people are speaking up, and the gun violence crisis may recede. By demanding action from government in large numbers, we will soon eliminate the easy access of minors to guns, and permanently eradicate gun violence in schools.

Works Cited