It’s no secret that the institution of marriage is going through a transition. Only twenty-six percent of American households are comprised of a traditional family, including a married heterosexual couple and their children. Between Bush promoting ”healthy“ heterosexual marriages and abstinence among low-income Americans and calls for a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriages, attempts to save this institution by resurrecting the 1950s are troubling — and oh so out of touch with reality. (And by the way, am I the only one who has noticed the double-standard in Bush’s promotion of ”healthy“ marriages for low-income Americans while his own brother, Neil, is caught up in a messy divorce drama, replete with adultery, an out-of-wedlock birth, and tons of riches?).

Initially an economic institution, marriage has only become a State-regulated institution in modern times. By attempting to respond to the transformation of this institution with more regulations, many conservatives are simply adding onto layers of contrived laws and social norms.

Scandinavia seems to have found a better solution, one which arose with the advent of gay marriage. In Scandinavia, marriage has essentially been deregulated, making love – rather than legal documents – the determining factor in defining the relationship between two people. As a result, all family forms (including out-of-wedlock parenthood and same-sex relationships) are legitimate.

With jobs and income guaranteed to all citizens — including children — each individual is independent. Consequently, people don’t have to feel obligated to get married. Since the government doesn’t condemn divorce and out-of-wedlock births, children born out-of-wedlock don’t suffer the stigma that their counterparts in the U.S. might. In fact, because parents are financially independent, they don’t bicker over many of the financial concerns that married couples here do, eliminating much emotional turmoil from the family.

With the U.S. economy in shambles and a wage gap between people of different genders and races, the economics of this model do not yet seem feasible. But if Bush spread the wealth and acknowledged the failure of contrived regulations to govern our desires, the U.S. could follow Scandinavia’s lead by deinstitutionalizing love and desire and enabling the expression of individualism. This may not be the most ideal solution. But it might be more beneficial for a larger group of people than political ploys to play ”marriage counselor.“

Laura Nathan-Garner

Regarding “Stereotypes translate well on screen“: I can see where some might think that the characterizations of Asians might be a bit offensive, particularly when seen through Western eyes.  However, you might also find it interesting to understand the real translations of the Japanese dialogue. The question then becomes which stereotypes do we really talk about?

Perhaps the title really does explain it.  Maybe it’s just a matter of which translation you are looking for.

A group of Asian American activists is criticizing the acclaimed movie Lost in Translation and urging Oscar voters to mark their ballots for other films. (Lost in Translation is nominated for best picture, best actor, best director and best screenplay).

Asianmediawatch.net contends that the film, set in Japan, portrays Japanese people as shallow stereotypes, and that the audience “laughs at the Japanese people and not with them,” according to a press release on a website the group has created.

I have not seen the film, but I have no doubt that in Hollywood tradition, Asians are used as a backdrop and as fodder for racist, or at the very least, insensitive jokes that milk every stereotype imaginable. Lost in Translation is just one in a long line of movies and TV shows in which Asians and Asian Americans are portrayed as, in the words of Asianmediawatch, “buffoons for the main (non-Asian) characters to ridicule.”

Asianmediawatch adroitly points out that had this film been set in Africa or Mexico, director Sophia Coppola would not have created “such an insensitive and racist portrayal of a people,” and that the movie is “indicative of a level of mainstream tolerance and acceptance of Asian American discrimination that would otherwise be unacceptable if directed towards African and Hispanic Americans.”

chinoloco

Regarding “The Chicken Hangers,” by Russell Cobb (Identify, February 2004)

After reading ”The Chicken Hangers,“ I find it disquieting that a union organizer would rather pitch in with illegal aliens who have cost his fellow legal state residents the opportunity to access jobs which are now occupied by illegal labor, than with those who are legally entitled to be in this country. It is also alarming that, knowing that the employer is delinquent, Cobb fails to denounce him to immigration authorities. The employment of legal laborers, in lieu of illegal aliens, would cause salaries and living standards to rise because illegal aliens are not looking for the same standard of living as U.S. citizens but for one better than the one they left in a developing nation.

Most unions, however, have fallen to the need of increasing their membership, even if this means betraying the future of American workers. The answer to the widespread use of illegal laborers would be to turn in every employer and landlord who is employing or sheltering any illegal aliens. Under Section 274 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, it is unlawful to encourage, employ, import, transport, and shelter illegal aliens. These acts are penalized by fines and imprisonment. Why unions don’t force employers to adhere to the law is beyond logic.

With eight to fourteen million illegal aliens occupying jobs that should be held by American citizens, Mexican President Vicente Fox is encouraging farmworkers to come to the United States, and therefore condones the siphoning of over $60 billion per year in remittances out of our economy into those of the illegal workers’ various home countries. The present situation can only be described as an invasion by hostile forces. In addition, thanks to the Voter Registration Act, every state that issues driver’s licenses to illegal aliens is potentially enabling a criminal to vote in our domestic issues and leaders. I hope that we learn to act accordingly and vote to roll back the tide of criminals who are squatting on our jobs and land.

In The Fray Contributor

A striking and gruesome image of the crucified Jesus, taken from the upcoming Mel Gibson film, The Passion of the Christ, decorates this week’s cover of Newsweek, and the headline reads, “Who Really Killed Jesus?” Newsweek asks a tantalizing question but, unfortunately, it does not ask the most appropriate question.  

Mel Gibson’s film has gained a disproportionate amount of publicity prior to its opening on February 25 — Ash Wednesday — and there are plenty of reasons for its notoriety: the film has no subtitles, and the dialogue is entirely in Latin and Aramaic; the Anti-Defamation League has opposed the release of the film on the basis that it would spark a rise in anti-Semitism; Gibson, an ardent and extremely conservative Roman Catholic, has pumped $25 million of his own funds into the film. To further fan the flames of speculation and criticism, Gibson’s father is a Holocaust denier.

The Newsweek article appropriately considers The Passion of the Christ to be a deeply troubling movie. But in its sexy headline, the magazine inappropriately encourages readers to ask the wrong question. The audience should not be goaded into amateur speculation on who and what forces were ultimately responsible for Jesus’ death. If the audience desires a serious answer to that historical question, they should consult reputable sources in recent scholarship.

And here is another problematic aspect of the film — despite the presence of English subtitles accompanying the film, which is entirely in Latin and Aramaic, viewers are likely to be swayed by the shocking images of the crucified and tormented Christ. Ghastly images of Christ will naturally evoke a deeply emotional reaction from the audience, particularly if that audience is Christian. It will be preaching to the converted par excellence.    

Although Gibson, who co-wrote the script and directed and produced the film, is an ardent Roman Catholic, he is no scholar. This film must be seen as a meditative, devotional or artistic film, but it must not be understood as a depiction of historical fact.  

Mimi Hanaoka

Bush has recently and rightly been recognized as an international bully, and continuing in that vein, the Bush administration is hoping to convince European nations of its plan for the future of the Middle East. In the words of the BBC, the Bush administration plans to “promote democracy across the Middle East,” and hopes that Europe will support this plan.

What is most troubling about the likely Bush plan for democratizing the Middle East is that it would be modeled on the 1975 Helsinki Accords. While the Bush administration seems ready to happily bulldoze its way even further into the Middle East, the complex web of international and regional politics cannot adhere to a one-size-fits-all model. The Helsinki Accords were used in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. It should be common sense that if the Bush administration wants to propose a map for the political future of the Islamic Middle East, it should accommodate the cultural and religious nuances of the region. Bush is no doubt frightened that, through his war, he inadvertently paved the way for a new and more Islamically oriented government to take over the reigns. If Iraq is primed for a more religiously oriented form of government, that is not something Bush can or should ignore.    

Bush made few friends with his almost unilateral plunge into Iraq, and he has made even fewer friends in light of the recent comments made by David Kay, the former chief weapons inspector, that the White House was wrong and that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction. Whether, in the months leading up to the war in Iraq, Bush was ignorant, lying or a spectacularly awful combination of both, he has found himself forced to fiercely defend his actions in Iraq. Convincing Europe to follow his lead again will be a very tough job indeed.  

Mimi Hanaoka

What does the evangelical community in America do when faced with the upcoming release of The Passion of the Christ, a controversial film that critics have denounced as rife with potential for inciting a wave of anti-Semitism? Take full advantage of the opportunity.  

The Passion of the Christ deals with the last twelve hours of Jesus’ life and focuses largely on the crucifixion.

The Anti-Defamation League has opposed the release of the film on the basis that it would spark a rise in anti-Semitism. Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, stated this summer that the members of his organization “are deeply concerned that the film, if released in its present form, will fuel the hatred, bigotry and anti-Semitism that many responsible churches have worked hard to repudiate.”  

Taking advantage of the upcoming release of the film on Ash Wednesday, February 25, some churches have collected money to give cinema-goers tickets to the film.    

Pastor Cory Engel, of Harvest Springs Community Church in Great Falls, Mass., explained his opportunistic program by stating: “Here’s a chance for us to use a modern-day technique to communicate the truth of the Bible.”  

Gibson, who co-wrote the script, produced and directed the film, contributed a hefty sum — something to the tune of $25 million — out of his own pocket to finance the project.

Gibson, a Roman Catholic, did not shell out nearly as much as the $90 million that John Travolta poured into Battlefield Earth: A Saga of the Year 3000, a film about the Scientology story of a vile race of aliens that attempts to enslave the human race, but Gibson’s motivation for creating the film was similarly spiritual.  

While Gibson’s family upbringing does not necessarily have any bearing on his interpretation of the Bible, his father is a Holocaust denier.

An honest and earnest desire by Christians to convert the unsaved is certainly part of the Christian teaching to spread the good word of Christ; that this film should be the vehicle for proselytization is, however, deeply troubling.  

Mimi Hanaoka

“I’m not interested,” said the annoyed man, eager to return to the din of the television behind him. He wore a concert t-shirt of a half-rate band and smirked as if to say, “Are you kidding me? I came to the door for this?!”

“Thanks anyway,” we replied, forcing ourselves to smile as the annoyed man shut the door in our faces. “Not interested?” I asked my friend and fellow door-knocker, Brent. “Not interested in what, contributing to society?”

Part of Howard Dean’s “Perfect Storm,” we had caravanned with three carloads of volunteers, all the way from Chicago, past what claimed to be the “World’s Largest Truck Stop,” to Iowa City. There we met up (no pun intended) with other Deanites at the Super 8 Motel for a quick training and our assignments. We had all come to help win Dean the Democratic nomination, but many of us would leave humbled after confronting the raw face of the voting and non-voting public.

Brent and I were sent out to go door-knocking at a low-income housing project near the University of Iowa. It was one of those mid-70s complexes designed more to prevent free assembly than to live in. Each building was like a small hive of ten or so apartments encased in an abundance of fire doors and surrounded by way too much parking.

Using our outdated list of registered Democrats and Independents as a guide, we started knocking on doors. “Hello, this is Brent and I’m Ben,” I’d say. “We’re volunteers for Howard Dean. We’re out today to see if you’re planning on attending the caucus on Monday?” Then we’d wait for some sort of response to see how to proceed. The vast majority of people were not at home. Of those that were home, many had a response similar to our annoyed man, brushing us off as if we were trying to hawk satellite dishes. While this was disheartening, we kept our spirits up by composing witty comebacks for each apathetic, non-voter (of course we’d do this after the door had been closed).

Thankfully, we were rewarded with some  interesting, even politically engaged characters. I was about to knock on one door when I was greeted with a loud, “Oh yeah, you like my cock inside you, don’t you?!” We decide not to knock on that particular door. But down the hall, a man answered the door and, for a moment, restored our hope in the future of the democratic process. He was a tall, gray-haired, black man dressed in a light blue kaftan. When the door opened, out wafted what smelled like lamb stew. As we gave him our standard Dean pitch, a big smile grew across his face. “I support Dean,” he responded in a thick accent we’d later learn was Sudanese. “But I cannot vote yet because I am not a citizen. Perhaps next year,” he added confidently. Delighted to find someone with a genuine appreciation of the unique freedom we have in our electoral system, we shook the man’s hand and thanked him.

In the end, our trip to Iowa didn’t do much for Dean. In fact, it’s possible that our presence hurt the campaign. What it did do was afford us, and countless other volunteers, a glimpse of both the full potential of our democracy as well as its greatest disappointment. I returned to Chicago humbled by this vision but determined to return as often as I could to the doorsteps of America.

Benjamin Helphand

Recently, plans to build a new Planned Parenthood clinic in a low-income neighborhood in Austin, Texas, were halted when Browning Construction withdrew from the project right before building was slated to begin. Word on the street is that Browning was under significant pressure from pro-life groups, which had gained momentum when Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003 a few weeks earlier.

In fact, according to Browning Construction worker Chris Danze, the company’s official justification for backing out of the project was that they feel that Planned Parenthood promotes ”sexual chaos“ and ”indiscriminate, unregulated, unsupervised sexual activity with no parental supervision or input,“ which Browning doesn’t want to promote.

Danze, who subsequently formed Texas Contractors and Suppliers for Life, hopes that Browning’s action will encourage other construction workers to abstain from condoning the pro-choice movement through their construction commitments. The group hopes to deter Planned Parenthood and similar projects from seeking their services in the future to the point of ensuring that such projects cannot find contractors, putting the health of thousands of men and women at stake. This development corroborates suspicion that the mounting pro-abstinence/pro-marriage campaign is working against the interests of lower-class women and men at the grassroots level, where corporate interests still dictate business and policy decisions — and apparently, reproductive health options.

Given that the majority of the services Planned Parenthood provides are basic health care and reproductive health care (most frequently, for women who can’t afford it)— not abortion counseling and procedures — there is far more at stake in this movement than the right to abortion. For women who cannot otherwise afford quality health care, the right to life might also be at stake.

It is worth noting, however, that the growing conservatism behind Browning’s decision has also mobilized pro-choice and women’s rights groups, who saw this as a wake-up call for just how far the pro-life/pro-abstinence movement is willing to go — and how much clout it is garnering. Thanks to a significant outpouring of support for Planned Parenthood, another construction company recently began construction on the site. But it is unclear whether such pro-choice/women’s rights groups have the clout and strength in numbers to keep this dangerous conservative tide at bay.

Laura Nathan-Garner

A decade ago, the first term of Jean-Bertrand Aristide’s presidency in Haiti was briefly cut short by a military coup. In the name of democracy, U.S. troops put Aristide back in power. But what has ensued in Haiti since that time has been anything but democratic.

After Aristide was elected to a second term, apparently all the power went to his head, as his response to threatened boycotts of last year’s legislative election demonstrated. Rather than confronting the reality that his party faced stiff opposition in the election, Aristide cancelled the election, dissolved the legislature and, in turn, gave himself the authority to rule by decree.

Not surprisingly, the Haitian people are paying a steep price for Aristide’s rendition of democracy. During the past few months, more than fifty Haitians have been killed, thanks to the street violence that is ensuing as Aristide’s opponents meet stiff resistance from pro-Aristide forces. As the Haitian people have learned, opposition to Aristide only increases his hold on the power that has gone straight to his head — and to the streets of Haiti.

What is the rest of the world doing while Haiti devolves into bloodshed and violence? In the U.S., the situation in Haiti rarely makes the news, and even when it does, the stories are brief. Bush is probably turning a blind eye to the situtation since the U.S. did, after all, help keep Aristide in power, thereby condoning his tyranny. But then again, Papa Bush also armed Saddam less than two decades before his son ravaged his country and ousted Saddam from power. Moreover, the U.S. is too preoccupied with Iraq and Janet Jackson’s breast to focus its attention on a Caribbean nation that isn’t exactly known as an oil hotbed.

Other Caribbean nations, meanwhile, are pressuring Aristide to speak with them and implement reforms. Their success, however, remains to be seen as violence and bloodshed become increasingly commonplace on the streets of Haiti.

With the next presidential election slated for late 2005, one question on nearly every Haitian’s mind is whether Aristide will call off this election as well. Given that Aristide’s revolution seems to be the only revolution from within that is succeeding, the best hope for the Haitian people to win back their democracy is to vote Aristide out of office as soon as possible. But 2005 seems to be a long time away when one cannot walk out on the street without wondering if she or he will return home alive. Perhaps the best solution for improving the lot of the Haitian people is to pressure Aristide and his supporters  to ensure that he begins implementing reforms in Haiti now to quell the violence caused by his leadership and to pave the path for Haitians to reclaim their democracy by exercising their right to vote in 2005.

All of this, of course, is easier said than done, particularly when the fate of the Haitian people relies so largely on the interest and power of one man. But since Aristide has successfully used domestic opposition to strengthen his hold on power time and time again, one can hope that he will begin to listen when foreign leaders get involved.

Laura Nathan-Garner

Now that a comedy about Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels has been aired on prime-time German television, perhaps there is no subject that is truly taboo. It seems, however, that humanizing Hitler and exhibiting his art was going one step too far.

Bizarrely citing an overwhelming amount of public interest as the reason for scrapping the planned display, Toshiba Entertainment has cancelled its plans to exhibit a painting by Adolf Hitler. Hitler’s painting of a Viennese church was intended to be part of a package to promote the film, Max, which depicts the young Hitler as a struggling artist and explores his relationship with Max Rothman, a Jewish art dealer. Some criticisms of the film are that it humanizes Hitler and trivializes the Holocaust.

While it would be unproductive to avoid serious and critical examination of a topic simply on the basis that it may be taboo, no serious artistic endeavor can justify trivializing the Holocaust.

In a staggeringly inarticulate defense of the film, director Menno Meyjes stated: “Hitler made a choice to become a monster because he found life very difficult — well, we all find life difficult, especially if you are an artist or aspire to anything.”

A defense of the artistic merits of the controversial film might be enlightening; submitting that Hitler’s difficult experiences make his genocide comprehensible is horrendous.  

Mimi Hanaoka

With the legal and philosophical justification that the Muslim headscarves have a distinctly political dimension, France will very likely enact a ban on wearing religious symbols in state schools. The ban, slated to become law next week, would apply to headscarves, crosses, turbans, skull caps and possibly beards. The bill proposes: “In schools, junior high schools and high schools, signs and dress that conspicuously show the religious affiliation of students are forbidden.”

In a highly diplomatic move, and unwilling to step on French toes, Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, the Grand Sheikh of the al-Azhar mosque in Egypt and one of the most important religious authorities in Sunni Islam, has upheld the French ban.

If this law is passed, it will do far more damage than stamp out religious pluralism and stifle religious freedom. Students will become separated along religious lines, especially if they or their parents believe that their only option is to attend a separate Muslim school, such as the institution that was recently founded in Lille. France will not be united under the banner of secularism; it will become polarized along religious lines. Islam is now the second largest religion in France, and this ban will be rightly interpreted as a thinly veiled attack on the country’s growing Muslim population. Fueled by righteous anger and driven into separate schools, a population is being created in France that is susceptible to being swayed by a radical interpretation of Islam.  

Mimi Hanaoka