Angering some and appalling others, Briton Karl Beattie has recently claimed that he is a samurai, despite the fact that the samurai class was officially abolished in 1868.

In recent months, a number of popular films, such as Lost in Translation, The Last Samurai, and Kill Bill have been released, and it is unclear whether jettisoning Japan into the popular consciousness has sparked claims such as Beattie’s. Perhaps Beattie’s absurd claim that he was granted the obsolete title by the Japanese Emperor — the Office of the Imperial Household told The Japan Times that it has done no such thing — is merely emblematic of a strangely and culturally inappropriate misplaced tendency of self-aggrandizement.

Mr. Beattie gushingly asserts that “Being a samurai is the ultimate honor.”

Challenging and expanding notions of national and cultural identity is certainly a productive thing to do. But what this sword-wielding Briton is suggesting is both anachronistic and troubling. This self-styled samurai is harkening back to a pre-modern feudal system in a highly militarized Japan. While it is doubtful that Mr. Beattie will have any significant impact, cultural or otherwise, it is problematic that he is, in effect, fetishizing a historical and cultural phenomenon.

When he is not busy occupying himself with the samurai way of life, Mr. Beattie runs a British production company. One of the company’s hit shows, Most Haunted, features Mr. Beattie’s wife, Yvette, tracking down ghosts and attempting to prove paranormal phenomena.  

Mimi Hanaoka

The events of Sept. 11, 2001, were a devastating tragedy, and the tangled web of security measures that were subsequently implemented have created their share of havoc, heartbreak and frustration. The case of Sonam, a thirty-year old Buddhist nun, was recently documented in The Washington Post.

Seeking asylum from religious persecution, Sonam fled China and entered the United States in August after her friends and family were subjected to torture for their adherence to Buddhist beliefs. Sonam entered the United States and was promptly incarcerated in Virginia. In November, Sonam was granted asylum by a federal immigration judge. The Department of Homeland Security immediately announced that it was appealing the case; instead of tasting religious and political freedom, Sonam shuffled back to her cell, shackled, where she awaits her next court date. While no date has yet been set, it is unlikely that she will be ushered into court again before the fall.

Tibetan Buddhists have been subject to religious persecution for more than half a century. In 1950, the forces of newly communist China invaded and occupied the Tibetan territories, and since the 1959 National Uprising, the Dalai Lama has been living in exile in India. In recent years, the plight of the Tibetan people has received increasing attention from the American public.

Clearly, there have been some gaping holes in the immigration process, as evidenced by recent reports suggesting that among the 9/11 hijackers were individuals who should have been denied entry or the right to remain in the United States. However, this process of denying parole to immigrants such as Sonam results in indefinite periods of incarceration. Coupled with the staggering amount of bureaucratic inefficiency, asylum seekers are forced into a miserable Bardo where they are neither here nor there. Sonam does not know when or if she will be freed.

Although she is unable to speak to anyone in prison — since Sonam does not speak English —, she maintains: ”This prison has become my monastery.“

Mimi Hanaoka

Speaking of queer lives for the straight eye, I found the following commentary, relayed by Patrick Letellier, to be both funny and disturbing at the same time:

Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning … recently said to the press, ”I don’t hate gay people.“

Bruning uttered that reassurance as he backpedaled, er, clarified an earlier statement he had made. When he learned that a Massachusetts court had green-lighted gay marriage, Bruning said to an Associated Press reporter, ”Does that mean you have to allow a man to marry his pet or a man to marry his chair?“

Uh, yes, Mr. Attorney General, that’s exactly what it means. I’d like to introduce you to my Sealey Posturepedic husband — he’s the dark green recliner in the corner. And that basset hound next to the chair? That’s my ex.

Houston, we have a problem: It looks like some people still have an awfully long way to go before they come to grips with the fact that queers are people, too …

Laura Nathan-Garner

For many years, sexual minorities struggled with the lack of representation of their communities on television. Sure, there were Will and Jack, the two gay characters on NBC’s Will & Grace. But many queers were frustrated with the fact that Will was played by a straight guy (and hence didn’t seem all that convincing on the screen) while Jack epitomized every imaginable stereotype of gay men. And there have been shows such as Six Feet Under, which have featured queer characters. But up until recently, there have not been any mainstream shows that have represented and spoken to GLBT communities. In fact, it is questionable whether much has changed even with the arrival of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, and more recently, The L Word.

But is the onset of such shows really empowering for these previously underrepresented communities? Yes and no. While the presence of shows revolving around the queer community is a positive step in disrupting an otherwise homogenous television culture, these shows fall back on old stereotypes, perhaps in order to win the viewership of straight men and women.

Queer Eye for instance, tells the story of five gay guys who are — surprise — into fashion and decorating. This seems to suggest that being a gay male is synonymous with being effeminate, which is something we’ve been hearing since the late 1940s. Sure, one could argue the fact that the gay guys on the show use their effeminacy to help make straight guys a little queerer, or a little more effeminate, by giving their lives a makeover. But the reality is that generally, this is done for straight men, not by straight men, to woo women. In other words, the show ends up bolstering stereotypes of both gay and straight men, where the former are cast as effeminate while the latter are cast as masculine, messy, and not all that in tune with their feminine side or the women in their lives — in order to preserve heterosexual relationships and heterosexuality more generally.

Somewhat similarly, The L Word, Showtime’s new series about lesbians, cast as the other side of HBO’s Sex and the City, also plays up femininity with several extremely attractive, skinny female characters. As Melissa Silverstein points out:

You’d think they had discovered something new. They tried to make these women seem like rock stars. I heard they even sent the stars on a lesbian cruise during premiere week. I couldn’t believe the press materials that I was sent by Showtime. So glossy. So expensive. So unlesbian. The pink materials with the actresses posed was ringed with many different L words – lush, lashes, lyrical, lofty, looking, loose, latent. One word that was very hard to find was the word ’lesbian.‘ It seemed as though they were trying to make The L Word stand for just about everything except lesbian.

Given that the majority of sex scenes on the show involve heterosexuals, the show seems to ensure that straight men and women don’t have to find themselves in an uncomfortable position. If the responses to the premiere of The L Word shared by Silverstein and her friends are any indication, the only audience that this show might appease consists primarily of heterosexuals.

However, it is important to note that The L Word is written and produced by two lesbians, which is an important step in ensuring that the queer community gains representation on-screen.  While Silverstein and others are skeptical of the way they have chosen to represent this community, it seems likely that they may have had to represent the lesbian community in rather homogenous — and heterosexual — terms in order to get their show airtime on a major network like Showtime. But the fact that these shows are the first of their kind is noteworthy, even if they don’t adequately represent the lives, interests and diversity of these communities. Perhaps future shows seeking to represent these communities will learn from the shortcomings of their predecessors and better speak to the complexities of GLBT communities without falling back on the terms defined by heterosexuality.

Laura Nathan-Garner

It’s no secret that the winner of the 2004 Presidential Election will be decided largely on the basis of identity politics. Everything from the corporate vote to the working-class vote to the female vote to the Jewish vote to the Latino vote to the Arab vote to the black vote is a concern of the candidates. Whether the candidates continue to pander to the interests of these contingencies once the election is over, of course, is open to debate.

But for now, it appears that even the Democrats are playing the race card to win votes — not from President Bush, but from each other. Alluding to comments Senator Kerry made in 1992, General Clark told two sets of predominately black audiences today that Kerry opposes affirmative action and has characterized it as creating ”a culture of dependency.“

Now standing on the defensive, Kerry insists that his comments have been mischaracterized and that he merely suggested that affirmative action needs to be mended. Kerry and his supporters have also argued that Kerry has consistently voted in favor of affirmative action in the Senate.

How much validity there is to either side’s story is certainly questionable. But even more disturbing is the way that the candidates are using the race question to further their own political aspirations rather than committing themselves as individuals to fostering a more genuine notion of humanity. But, unfortunately, when a mansion on Pennsylvania Avenue commonly referred to as the White House is at stake, people get a little power hungry. The bashing of one’s opponents that ensues is quite unfortunate since this tactic so often relies upon insulting the humanity of others. Is it any wonder why a host of ”isms“ persist today as we continue to struggle to forge a more inclusive, genuine notion of humanity?

Laura Nathan-Garner

During the past few years, there has been plenty of talk about the increasing prevalence of obesity in this country. Not surprisingly, dozens of industries are trying to capitalize on this epidemic. It seems like every other week, a new ”miracle drug“ is put on the market to help consumers lose dozens of pounds in a matter of days. Gyms, yoga studios, and people who produce workout videos are making a fortune off of this phenomenon as well. And, of course, there’s Jared the Subway guy, who has taught us all that if we just eat Subway sandwiches every day, we too can drop a significant amount of weight.  

Given these developments, you’d probably guess that Americans were buying into a new cult of thinness rather than one of obesity. Given the number of people suffering from anorexia and bulemia, there is no doubt that there is some validity to this statement. But as Americans continue to buy into new weight-loss fads, the statistics seem to suggest that high rates of obesity and obesity-related health problems (and deaths) continue to skyrocket. Part of this can be explained by the fact that these fads rarely keep weight off long-term, if at all.

But there are other questions that need to be asked. Why is it that despite an obsession with thinness, we can’t seem to keep the obesity statistics down? Do we just eat too much? Do Americans lack the willpower to just say ”no“ to spending more money and eating more food than necessary for sustenance? There’s certainly no question that, on the whole, people in the U.S. tend to consumer considerably more than people in other countries do.

But consider the way in which the Bush administration is providing life-support for the obesity epidemic. As Jonathan Rowe and Gary Ruskin point out, the Bush administration, which has talked quite a bit about personal responsibility and staying in shape, has rejected the World Health Organization’s plan to combat obesity, diabetes, and other related illnesses.

One of the Bush administration’s primary justifications for rejecting this plan is that individuals should take responsibility for their own actions and for their food and diet. For most opponents of government regulation of our bodies, there is quite a bit of validity to this argument. But there is another side to this story that the government isn’t articulating. As Rowe and Ruskin explain:

Note that the Bush Administration is not demanding some personal responsibility from
junk food bigwigs such as sugar magnate Jose ’Pepe‘ Fanjul, Safeway CEO Steven Burd, and Richard F. Hohlt, a lobbyist for Altria (formerly Philip Morris), which is majority owner of Kraft. It is not asking them to take responsibility for the billions of dollars they and other junk food marketers spend seducing our kids with saturation ads, nor for the obvious and predictable consequences of these actions — i.e. the diseases
associated with the consumption of junk food.

Each of these fat cats has purchased an indulgence in the form of bundled $200,000 contributions to the 2004 Bush campaign. So the Administration points the finger instead at parents and their children …

The sugar industry has wanted to hobble WHO since the organization said that free sugars should comprise less than 10% of total daily calories. Last April, the Sugar Association actually threatened WHO that it would sic its allies in Congress on the U.S.’s annual $406 million contributions.

Now, we agree that people do need to take more responsibility for the junk they put into their mouths, and for their failure to get off their behinds. But the global obesity lobby has to take some responsibility too, for its nonstop propaganda campaign, especially when it is aimed at children. That includes Henry Kravis, founding partner of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, which is majority owner of Channel One, an in-school meeting service that bombards schoolchildren with ads for soda pop and junk food. True, Mr. Kravis has bundled $100,000 to the Bush 2004 campaign. But surely President Bush understands that sometimes, we just have to say “No.”

Executives such as Mr. Kravis seem to have a hard time grasping another Administration nostrum – that parents are the proper guides to their children’s behavior. They persist in injecting themselves into the relationship between parents and children. They seduce kids with ads crafted by psychologists to turn the kids into relentless nags for junk food that many parents do not want their kids to have. These executives have got to take some responsibility for the way they disrupt the home …

Forgotten in the daily barrage of junk food ads is the way the government actually encourages these very corporations. Under U.S. tax law, for example, most corporate advertising is tax deductible. So next time your kid throws a tantrum because you don’t want to buy her another Big Mac, you might recall that your tax dollars are helping
to pay for the ads that induced your child’s snit …

Eighteen months ago, President Bush himself said ”when I talk about personal responsibility in America, I expect there to be corporate responsibility as well, and we will hold those to account who do not uphold those high standards in  
America.“

Such corporate responsibility remains to be seen, of course. And something tells me that Bush won’t be asking much of corporations like Altria before next November. Until then, millions of lives will be at stake as a result of overconsumption. The problem doesn’t merely have repercussions in the U.S. either. Many of those lives will be at stake because someone else — often in the U.S. — was consuming too much, leaving them a dearth of food to consume.

Laura Nathan-Garner

Cultural practices and social mores often color — or depending on your perspective, intrude upon — religious practice, leaving some Buddhist nuns in Sri Lanka in a bind.

One such nun, Bhikuni Kusuma, has taken on the title of “Bhikuni,” which is the appellation accorded to an ordained Buddhist nun. While Buddhist nuns abound in the world, the controversy in Sri Lanka is that the dominant form of Buddhist thought in the country is Theravada Buddhism. These nuns were ordained in the Mahayana tradition of Buddhism. The two schools diverge on matters of both belief and practice, and the fact that the nuns have been ordained in the Mahayana tradition has resulted in friction and outright criticism.

The nuns find themselves in a catch-22: To be ordained as a nun in the Theravada tradition, a woman must be ordained by ten senior nuns. However, there are currently no nuns in the Theravada tradition.

Personal piety is clearly not the central issue in this controversy. It seems doubtful that the approximately 400 ordained nuns in Sri Lanka could pose a threat to the established clerical hierarchy, yet the moneyed religious establishment is wary of conferring legitimacy to a movement that has any potential of destabilizing its monopoly on religious authority. Unlike the Catholic tradition, Buddhism has no living individual, like the Pope, who wields ultimate religious authority. Given the inherent fragmentation of authority and the diversity of schools and modes of thought within the Buddhist tradition, to deny these women the right to ordination is to stunt the growth of a dynamic religious movement.    

Mimi Hanaoka

During the past few days, the newswires have been busily documenting the sordid business of modern day slavery. The BBC today carries the story of Mende Nazer, a young Sudanese woman who was adbucted by slave raiders at the age of twelve and spent eight years as a slave before she escaped. Nazer was eventually given by her mistress to her mistress’s sister who lived in London. The rationale for the human gift, as the wife of a slave trader explained to Nazer’s mistress, was that “‘it’s easy for us to get you another abda [slave]…whereas I understand it’s impossible for people to find one in London.’” Nazer escaped while she was held captive in London and has recently published her book, Slave.

On a related subject, an aritcle in The New York Times documents the barbaric and lucractive U.S. sex slave industry. Sex slave are distinct from prostitutes: They are unwillingly forced into prostitution, receive no financial renumeration for their services, and are held captive by their traffickers or owners. The numbers are staggering. Kevin Bales, of Free the Slaves, America’s largest anti-slavery organization, estimates that the number of sex slaves in America amounts to 30,000 to 50,000 slaves.

The United States only recently enacted legislation that speaks to the crime of trafficking in humans.  The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 enables the United States to impose economic sanctions on nations that the it believes are not making sufficient efforts to stem the human trafficking within their borders. The Protect Act, established in 2003, criminalizes travel abroad or into the United States for the purposes of sex tourism that involves children.

That commerce in sex slavery and human bondage exists is shameful but perhaps not entirely shocking. What is without a doubt shameful is that it is only in the past few years that America has enacted legislation to criminalize it.

Mimi Hanaoka