So Prince of Persia : The Sands Of Time was pretty much dead on arrival. It had a big budget behind it, some bankable stars, and it's based on a very popular video game series. So what went wrong? Plenty. For example, being accused of white washing (Jake Gyllenhaal is not Persian.) How many other video games have been turned into movies and have just been bad? Super Mario Bros. is a travesty. Street Fighter is about as cheesy as it gets. How about Wing Commander? Has anyone actually ever watched it? I can't name anyone who has. So why is it so hard to make a good video game movie? It's not. The formula is not hard to follow. We're going to use Rampage as the example as to where to start.
The first problem is taking well known plans, and having them adapt to the screen. Usually there are too many changes to the plot or story to make it work, and it loses appeal. So you take a game with a pretty loose plot that you can adapt, like Rampage. The plot of the original Rampage was that up to three players can play at once, and play as a giant ape, George, giant wolf, Ralph, or a giant lizard, Lizzie, and you have to destroy every building on the level to move on. These giant monsters were created by experimenting on humans. Simple plot, and able to be adapted. Newer incarnations has created Scumlabs as the group who experimented on the three humans. We can start here. Three college kids, two male, one female, who are hard up for money get hired as 'taste testers' for a new kind of soda. So they go to the labs on a Friday, so they can stay overnight for testing. They drink the soda Friday, by Saturday night they turn into monsters, and are placed into holding cells to be studied by the Lab. For this to work, you can't use Scumlabs as the name. So the labs can be renamed. Realizing now that they are imprisoned and going to be studied, they devise a plan to get out of the Lab. They subdue a guard, gorge themselves on the 'soda' and turn back into the monsters, but have now grown to be a few stories high. With the Lab trying to recapture them the three college kids, now as massively over sized monsters, set out to destroy the Lab, and their parent company. See, simple.
The next step comes from the writing. The story has to be told in a Ghostbusters/Evolution kind of way. It has to be an action/comedy. There's plenty of visual gags, and commentary gags to go around when the three friends are all giant monsters. Add into this a love story between Lizzie and either George or Ralph, whoever would be decided as the leader of the group, and there's plenty to work with here. The main villain is the owner of the company responsible for the creation of the three monsters. In the game, his name is Eustace DeMonic, and in order to save himself, he becomes a monster himself. This fits well into the movie. The name of the character in the game is a little outlandish, so that would have to be changed. Maybe go with a bit of humor and go with Williams Fences. The climatic battle would be between the three monsters, and the head of the company, all as giant monsters, and laying waste to a city. The looseness of the plot allows for a sequel also. In the newer Rampage games, the monsters fight aliens. So you could establish the founder of the company as an alien in disguise, experimenting on humans in order to weaken them for an alien invasion. This is easily incorporated into a movie.
The trick here is also in the casting. I think exploiting a conflict between the young and old would be useful here. For George or Ralph I would cast someone who is looking to break out, and change the stereotype that has been molded to them. Zac Effron immediately comes to mind. I'm pretty sure he doesn't want to be typecast as a pretty boy high school kid who can sing and dance. The other role would be good for a Mark Salling, or a Dijon Talton. For Lizzie, I would go the same route. I'd be looking for someone like a Naya Rivera, Christy Carlson Romano, Britney Song, or Adrienne Bailon. The evil owner would be a good play for a guy like Alec Baldwin, or Oliver Platt.
I would then promote this movie the same way Die Hard was first promoted. Quick clips, no monsters in the commercials. Explosions, people screaming and running, and a guy on the phone being told 'they're coming for you.' It's mysterious enough for people to be curious enough to want to check it out.
King Kong did well at the box office, and it took itself pretty seriously, same with Cloverfield. So what if we took elements of those movies and made it into an action/comedy, and the heroes are the giant monsters? This movie could easily turn into a franchise trilogy. As long as the script balances comedy and action, and makes the characters even somewhat interesting, it'd be a great summer flick. Explosions, giant monsters, and a crazy kissing scene between a giant lizard and a giant ape or wolf would be hysterical, and top the awesomeness. We're not looking to win awards with this movie. We are looking to have people enjoy themselves.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell.
I'm trying to remember what my first reaction was when Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT)was first instituted. I really can't remember actually. Looking back now though, I have to ask, what was the goal here? Why was this put into action anyway? How is this really protecting anyone? I don't think DADT accomplished what it was supposed to, except it made certain people feel persecuted, and an outsider to society. Considering how the country was founded, and the rights people have, how exactly did this rule get passed?
Every few decades there's a group of people fighting for acceptance in something. Women wanted equal rights. African-Americans wanted segregation ended. Now, gays and lesbians have to fight just to have the same rights as everyone else. Katherine Miller left West Point because she felt she had compromised her integrity and her identity by lying and acting like a straight woman. Really? This is what we, as society have come to? How many other students have decided not to attend West Point because of DADT? How many of them could have been the next greatest George Washington, Napoleon Bonaparte, or Alexander the Great? No one knows. Why? Because of a horrible policy that prohibits the right for people to be who they are. Does it really matter if the military has gays and lesbians in the military? They wanted to serve in the military. That doesn't mean that if they get shipped out to Afghanistan or somewhere else where there is conflict they are going to run away screaming. Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they don't take pride in their country, and don't want to fight to defend it. Wasn't the voting age dropped to 18 for a similar reason? The voting age was dropped to 18 with the logical thinking of if you can fight and die in a war at 18, you should be able to vote also. So we're going to ban someone from being a soldier because they're gay? Does this really matter? It shouldn't.
Being gay isn't something like an attack from a vampire, or a bite from a zombie. Just because you're in contact with them, doesn't mean your going to become one. DADT clearly enforces the thought that being gay is a disease, and ignoring it means it will go away, and no one else will be infected. That is such a barbaric thought. If that person next to me is under gunfire with me, and is willing to work with me to survive the battle, then does it matter if that person is gay? Does it mean that *GASP* I'm going to become gay because I fought with them? No. That's a completely irrational thought. So is DADT.
The reason there are still hate crimes against gays, African-Americans, Muslims, and others is because of a lack of tolerance and acceptance. Are we still teaching kids that it's OK to not like someone because they look or act differently from them? It's policies like DADT that reinforce this thought process. Who are we to judge what is right and what is wrong when it's not illegal? You can't change someone just because you don't like who they are, so why try? Accept them for who they are. No one says you have to like them, but you should accept them for who they are. Personalities clash, I get that. Just because someone is gay doesn't mean you should hate or dislike them immediately.
Is DADT really protecting anyone? What is DADT protecting? 'This man's army' is about as outdated as fighting against Communism. Everyone should have the right to be who they are, regardless of where they work. If someone is gay, and wants to serve in the military, they should not be told to stay quiet about who they are. In fact, someone coming out and saying they are gay shows a definite kind of mental toughness to do so. That's the kind of mental toughness soldiers should have, and are taught to have during basic training.
Every few decades there's a group of people fighting for acceptance in something. Women wanted equal rights. African-Americans wanted segregation ended. Now, gays and lesbians have to fight just to have the same rights as everyone else. Katherine Miller left West Point because she felt she had compromised her integrity and her identity by lying and acting like a straight woman. Really? This is what we, as society have come to? How many other students have decided not to attend West Point because of DADT? How many of them could have been the next greatest George Washington, Napoleon Bonaparte, or Alexander the Great? No one knows. Why? Because of a horrible policy that prohibits the right for people to be who they are. Does it really matter if the military has gays and lesbians in the military? They wanted to serve in the military. That doesn't mean that if they get shipped out to Afghanistan or somewhere else where there is conflict they are going to run away screaming. Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they don't take pride in their country, and don't want to fight to defend it. Wasn't the voting age dropped to 18 for a similar reason? The voting age was dropped to 18 with the logical thinking of if you can fight and die in a war at 18, you should be able to vote also. So we're going to ban someone from being a soldier because they're gay? Does this really matter? It shouldn't.
Being gay isn't something like an attack from a vampire, or a bite from a zombie. Just because you're in contact with them, doesn't mean your going to become one. DADT clearly enforces the thought that being gay is a disease, and ignoring it means it will go away, and no one else will be infected. That is such a barbaric thought. If that person next to me is under gunfire with me, and is willing to work with me to survive the battle, then does it matter if that person is gay? Does it mean that *GASP* I'm going to become gay because I fought with them? No. That's a completely irrational thought. So is DADT.
The reason there are still hate crimes against gays, African-Americans, Muslims, and others is because of a lack of tolerance and acceptance. Are we still teaching kids that it's OK to not like someone because they look or act differently from them? It's policies like DADT that reinforce this thought process. Who are we to judge what is right and what is wrong when it's not illegal? You can't change someone just because you don't like who they are, so why try? Accept them for who they are. No one says you have to like them, but you should accept them for who they are. Personalities clash, I get that. Just because someone is gay doesn't mean you should hate or dislike them immediately.
Is DADT really protecting anyone? What is DADT protecting? 'This man's army' is about as outdated as fighting against Communism. Everyone should have the right to be who they are, regardless of where they work. If someone is gay, and wants to serve in the military, they should not be told to stay quiet about who they are. In fact, someone coming out and saying they are gay shows a definite kind of mental toughness to do so. That's the kind of mental toughness soldiers should have, and are taught to have during basic training.
Scott Pilgrim and Piranha 3D vs. The World! (Or How To Enjoy Every Movie You See)
So Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World and Piranha 3D haven't exactly set the box office on fire. I think the major problem for this is that there is a serious lack of the suspension of disbelief. There is nothing deep about either of these movies. There's nothing Oscar worthy from either of these movies. Does that make them completely joyless and unwatchable? Absolutely not! Both of these movies can be seen as good movies, fun movies, if looked at in the right frame of mind.
If you are going to see Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World and expecting a mash up of The Notebook with the love story element, mixed with Rocky IV with the fight scenes, then you are completely off base. If I told you Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World was the greatest video game movie ever made, then you are clearly in the right frame of mind to enjoy the movie. I understand that the movie is based off of a comic, but two things here. The first, the comic book itself is a complete homage and reference to video games, and other comics. The second, The Dark Knight and Iron Man has elevated the standard for comic book movies. Not only that, but when you hear 'comic book movie' you expect big powerful explosions, incredible powers, and people in flashy costumes with capes. So taking into account that this is the greatest video game movie ever, you won't be questioning how did Scott Pilgrim, or the Seven Evil Ex's get their abilities, you just take it for face value. They just can. Is that so bad to assume? It is a movie, not a documentary. Not only that, the movie is made for you to escape into and enter a new world. Some people read. Some people play video games. Some people watch TV. You are watching this movie as an escape from your everyday life, and you're looking to be entertained. This movie is very entertaining. This is one of the most enjoyable movies I have seen this year. I enjoyed it because I knew what I was walking into, a movie with a ton of video game, Anime, and comic book references, with fight scenes that look awesome, but couldn't really happen.
Piranha 3D is obviously a horror movie, and it uses 3D to try and enhance the scares. Which it does. The most cliche jump out scenes are used, but they still have that startling effect because instead of seeing the skeletal hand pop out of the water on the screen, it looks like it's two rows in front of you. The movie is a remake, and if you didn't know that, that's OK. If you are going to see this then you know it's a horror movie. Most horror movies are built upon scares, gore, and sometimes nudity. So go in with these expectations, and I bet you enjoy the movie. I don't usually get startled in horror movies, I haven't been scared when watching a horror movie in a long time. This movie made me jump a lot, even after I was like, I knew that was going to happen. That's the point of the movie though. It's supposed to be over the top. The people making this movie weren't making this to win any awards. They made this movie to entertain people. Expectations just need to be tempered.
Not every movie is going to be Avatar or Inception. To expect them to be is absurd. Movies are generally created to be entertaining. Some movies don't have a hidden agenda, and don't want to be artsy. Some just want to tell a story, and hope you enjoy the story. It comes down to, when you buy a ticket for a movie, you saw something that made you want to see it. Going in understanding what you are going to see will help you like the movies.
If you are going to see Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World and expecting a mash up of The Notebook with the love story element, mixed with Rocky IV with the fight scenes, then you are completely off base. If I told you Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World was the greatest video game movie ever made, then you are clearly in the right frame of mind to enjoy the movie. I understand that the movie is based off of a comic, but two things here. The first, the comic book itself is a complete homage and reference to video games, and other comics. The second, The Dark Knight and Iron Man has elevated the standard for comic book movies. Not only that, but when you hear 'comic book movie' you expect big powerful explosions, incredible powers, and people in flashy costumes with capes. So taking into account that this is the greatest video game movie ever, you won't be questioning how did Scott Pilgrim, or the Seven Evil Ex's get their abilities, you just take it for face value. They just can. Is that so bad to assume? It is a movie, not a documentary. Not only that, the movie is made for you to escape into and enter a new world. Some people read. Some people play video games. Some people watch TV. You are watching this movie as an escape from your everyday life, and you're looking to be entertained. This movie is very entertaining. This is one of the most enjoyable movies I have seen this year. I enjoyed it because I knew what I was walking into, a movie with a ton of video game, Anime, and comic book references, with fight scenes that look awesome, but couldn't really happen.
Piranha 3D is obviously a horror movie, and it uses 3D to try and enhance the scares. Which it does. The most cliche jump out scenes are used, but they still have that startling effect because instead of seeing the skeletal hand pop out of the water on the screen, it looks like it's two rows in front of you. The movie is a remake, and if you didn't know that, that's OK. If you are going to see this then you know it's a horror movie. Most horror movies are built upon scares, gore, and sometimes nudity. So go in with these expectations, and I bet you enjoy the movie. I don't usually get startled in horror movies, I haven't been scared when watching a horror movie in a long time. This movie made me jump a lot, even after I was like, I knew that was going to happen. That's the point of the movie though. It's supposed to be over the top. The people making this movie weren't making this to win any awards. They made this movie to entertain people. Expectations just need to be tempered.
Not every movie is going to be Avatar or Inception. To expect them to be is absurd. Movies are generally created to be entertaining. Some movies don't have a hidden agenda, and don't want to be artsy. Some just want to tell a story, and hope you enjoy the story. It comes down to, when you buy a ticket for a movie, you saw something that made you want to see it. Going in understanding what you are going to see will help you like the movies.
Build the Mosque in New York City
Why shouldn't the mosque be built in New York City? Does it really matter that it's only a couple of blocks away from the 9/11 site? It shouldn't. This isn't exactly Rudy Giuliani booting all the strip clubs and what not out of the radius of schools and churches. It seems like the biggest problem with the Mosque being built is racism.
Too many people are viewing the Islamic religion as a religion that just spawns terrorists. The fact that the group backing the building of the mosque has come out and stated they condemned the actions of the terrorists, and have nothing to do with Muslim extremists, should be enough to allow the mosque to be built. You can't claim someone is a terrorist just because they are part of a specific religion. That's like saying I have blond hair and blue eyes so I must be a Nazi. It really comes down to, not enough people understand the Islamic religion, and are afraid of it. It's not like the mosque is going to be some secret headquarters that are going to be used to carry out terrorist agenda, or train new terrorists to unleash on New York City.
The argument that family of the victims of 9/11 find the plans, and the idea itself, offensive just shows how traumatized these people are. They lost loved ones and friends in a very tragic event in United States history. Having that kind of traumatic episode, and being able to link the event to one specific group, completely makes sense as to why they would have this reaction. Does that mean the mosque should not be built? No. It means these people are still haunted by 9/11, and anyone in their place most likely would be also. This is more of a call for help to help these people mentally progress past the disaster. I completely understand their motivation, and their thought process. They just need some extra help in accepting the building of the mosque. It's not like the mosque is being built to spit in the face of the people who died during the 9/11 attacks. The mosque is being built because the United States allows everyone to practice their own religion without persecution.
Our forefathers came to this land to be free to practice whatever religion they wanted to practice. That right has been embedded into out culture. Who are we to decide that right is only given to certain people, and certain groups? Do you really want to ban people from practicing a religion when you do so yourself daily? Everyone in the United States practices that right daily, whether they are Christian, Islamic, Jewish, an Atheist, or Agnostic, or whatever else. No one is lynching people in the streets because they met someone who is not of the same religion as them. So who are we to deny that right to someone else?
There is no viable reason to block the building of the mosque. These people are just building a center that can be used for the worship and practice of their religion. What's the fault in that? They are not infringing on anyone else's rights, so why should we infringe on theirs?
Too many people are viewing the Islamic religion as a religion that just spawns terrorists. The fact that the group backing the building of the mosque has come out and stated they condemned the actions of the terrorists, and have nothing to do with Muslim extremists, should be enough to allow the mosque to be built. You can't claim someone is a terrorist just because they are part of a specific religion. That's like saying I have blond hair and blue eyes so I must be a Nazi. It really comes down to, not enough people understand the Islamic religion, and are afraid of it. It's not like the mosque is going to be some secret headquarters that are going to be used to carry out terrorist agenda, or train new terrorists to unleash on New York City.
The argument that family of the victims of 9/11 find the plans, and the idea itself, offensive just shows how traumatized these people are. They lost loved ones and friends in a very tragic event in United States history. Having that kind of traumatic episode, and being able to link the event to one specific group, completely makes sense as to why they would have this reaction. Does that mean the mosque should not be built? No. It means these people are still haunted by 9/11, and anyone in their place most likely would be also. This is more of a call for help to help these people mentally progress past the disaster. I completely understand their motivation, and their thought process. They just need some extra help in accepting the building of the mosque. It's not like the mosque is being built to spit in the face of the people who died during the 9/11 attacks. The mosque is being built because the United States allows everyone to practice their own religion without persecution.
Our forefathers came to this land to be free to practice whatever religion they wanted to practice. That right has been embedded into out culture. Who are we to decide that right is only given to certain people, and certain groups? Do you really want to ban people from practicing a religion when you do so yourself daily? Everyone in the United States practices that right daily, whether they are Christian, Islamic, Jewish, an Atheist, or Agnostic, or whatever else. No one is lynching people in the streets because they met someone who is not of the same religion as them. So who are we to deny that right to someone else?
There is no viable reason to block the building of the mosque. These people are just building a center that can be used for the worship and practice of their religion. What's the fault in that? They are not infringing on anyone else's rights, so why should we infringe on theirs?
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Does The Right to Free Speech Need Fine Print?
Westboro Baptist Church is abusing Freedom of Speech. Picketing a dead soldiers funeral, and hoisting signs of 'Thank God For Dead Soldiers' and 'Semper Fi Fag' is not what I think our forefathers had in mind when they wrote up the details of freedom of speech.
Are soldiers not dying in wars to protect Free Speech (among other things?) So what gives this group of inbred fanatics the right to picket a funeral? Maybe constricting the Freedom of Speech is the right thing to do. The Westboro Baptist Church was apparently well within their rights to protest because they were 1000 feet away from the funeral. So let's change that to a 2 mile radius near the church and graveyard. If you want to protest the funeral, find somewhere not near the church or the grave site.
Same thing with marriages. I don't care if gays and lesbians want to marry each other. If they're stupid enough to want to get married, you might as well let them get married. It's their problem, not the problem of society. So you ban protests within a two mile radius of a church or graveyard, and the problem there is solved. If you want to protest gay marriage, do it in front of city hall. There's probably a sign up sheet of other protests just inside the front door. Do it every time a gay couple gets married. Just don't do it at the church.
Hospitals should be given the same treatment. If another Matthew Shepherd story comes around, I'm about 95% sure the Westboro Baptist Church is going to protest at the hospital that he should not get any form of medical attention because he's gay. No protest within two miles of a hospital. Boom, problem solved.
How about the case of Phoebe Prince? The faculty isn't going to see any repercussions, they should be picketed. Should you do it in front of the school? Yes. Why? Because the school system and structure failed. A soldier fighting for Freedom of Speech does not deserve a protest at his funeral. A couple getting married, no matter your views, are not bothering anyone, they don't deserve to be singled out either.
Recently, a local high school had demonstrators from the Westboro Baptist Church in front of the school because their Drama Club was performing The Laramie Project. You should be allowed to demonstrate for or against art. The current guidelines for demonstrating and protest would apply just fine in this case, meaning the 1000 feet rule. As long as they are not disrupting people from getting in and out of the building, and the protest is not violent, it shouldn't be a problem.
If you want to protest, then protest. Protesting something like a funeral, that's despicable. You should not be using someone else's pain for your own personal gain when you protest or demonstrate. The man suing the Westboro Church should not have to pay their court expenses, and should be reimbursed for all the trouble the church has caused him. If they are dumb enough to demonstrate at a painful place and time, like a funeral, then they should be hit with the repercussions.
Are soldiers not dying in wars to protect Free Speech (among other things?) So what gives this group of inbred fanatics the right to picket a funeral? Maybe constricting the Freedom of Speech is the right thing to do. The Westboro Baptist Church was apparently well within their rights to protest because they were 1000 feet away from the funeral. So let's change that to a 2 mile radius near the church and graveyard. If you want to protest the funeral, find somewhere not near the church or the grave site.
Same thing with marriages. I don't care if gays and lesbians want to marry each other. If they're stupid enough to want to get married, you might as well let them get married. It's their problem, not the problem of society. So you ban protests within a two mile radius of a church or graveyard, and the problem there is solved. If you want to protest gay marriage, do it in front of city hall. There's probably a sign up sheet of other protests just inside the front door. Do it every time a gay couple gets married. Just don't do it at the church.
Hospitals should be given the same treatment. If another Matthew Shepherd story comes around, I'm about 95% sure the Westboro Baptist Church is going to protest at the hospital that he should not get any form of medical attention because he's gay. No protest within two miles of a hospital. Boom, problem solved.
How about the case of Phoebe Prince? The faculty isn't going to see any repercussions, they should be picketed. Should you do it in front of the school? Yes. Why? Because the school system and structure failed. A soldier fighting for Freedom of Speech does not deserve a protest at his funeral. A couple getting married, no matter your views, are not bothering anyone, they don't deserve to be singled out either.
Recently, a local high school had demonstrators from the Westboro Baptist Church in front of the school because their Drama Club was performing The Laramie Project. You should be allowed to demonstrate for or against art. The current guidelines for demonstrating and protest would apply just fine in this case, meaning the 1000 feet rule. As long as they are not disrupting people from getting in and out of the building, and the protest is not violent, it shouldn't be a problem.
If you want to protest, then protest. Protesting something like a funeral, that's despicable. You should not be using someone else's pain for your own personal gain when you protest or demonstrate. The man suing the Westboro Church should not have to pay their court expenses, and should be reimbursed for all the trouble the church has caused him. If they are dumb enough to demonstrate at a painful place and time, like a funeral, then they should be hit with the repercussions.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Endure
It came from a small paragraph in a paper which means you kill yourself and you make a big old sacrifice and try to get your revenge. That all you're gonna end up with is a paragraph in a newspaper. Sixty-three degrees and cloudy in a suburban neighborhood. That's the beginning of the video and that's the same thing is that in the end, it does nothing … nothing changes. The world goes on and you're gone. The best revenge is to live on and prove yourself. Be stronger than those people. And then you can come back. - Eddie Vedder
This one goes out to all the would-be Phoebe Prince's in the world.
Suicide is not the answer.
It's cliche. It's heard often. It's the truth. Eddie Vedder makes a great point. The quote is referring to when he was asked about the music video for Jeremy. It starts and ends the same way. Suicide may seem like the answer. Suicide may seem like the best way out of your situation. It's not. The day will end the same way it always has. A new day will start the same way it always has. The message you want to send will not be sent. It will break your parent's hearts, and make them question things they have done, could have done differently, or never did. It may not even be their fault at all. You will be missed. Over time however, the pain will heal. There will be a scar, but the pain will heal. Your death will not bring along great changes in society.
The suicide of Phoebe Prince has brought the nation's attention to the new kind of bullying going on at schools today. In the end, nothing is going to change. Her bullies will go on living, and their trial will eventually fade out of memory. There won't be great changes in how schools monitor their students. There won't be a great change is how schools handle bullies. In the end, the death of Phoebe Prince is a sad story. The real tragedy is that with a case like this, there will be no changes made to prevent future suicides from happening.
If a story as strong as this can not bring about changes in society, how can your suicide, your story, bring about any changes? It won't. The real revenge is surviving. Make it one more day. I know that High School is supposed to be the best time of your lives. You have no responsibility, no bills, no one to provide for. It's just you, some stupid homework, and being with your friends. I understand how the day to day living in High School can be viewed as a nightmare, and it seems like it will never end. This is all you know, and it's a hellish reality. Persevere. Get through another day. One day, when you think just get through the day, it will be your last day of High School. You can leave, and never look back. You can remake yourself in the real world or in college. You can go out and be successful, be who you want to be. Your goal should be to embarrass your bullies by becoming rich, powerful, successful, famous. Your killing stroke to the people who bullied you can be to use your power, your influence, your money, to bring about changes in the way the system works. You can use your fame to tell the story of how you were bullied, and use it as a shield to make sure it does not happen again. That should be your goal. That would achieve a greater glory, and have a more profound effect then a suicide. Your suicide will go down as a statistic somewhere, and you will be forgotten. Imagine if you could change society where kids like you were won't be bullied, because YOU made that change happen by becoming an activist and speaking out about what you endured.
Suicide is not an effective motivation for societal changes. The only person who can right the wrongs in your past is you, as an adult, in the future. Make something of yourself to bring about changes. You can do more damage inside the system then you can outside of it. Use that as your motivation. It's a lot stronger then any rope, or bullet that is readily available.
Sympathy For The Devil
Today on the news this morning, there was an update as to the ongoings in the Phoebe Prince case. Six teens have been arraigned on charges from stalking, assault, civil rights violations, and criminal intent. One of the lawyers for the Mean Girls issued a statement, saying that the Mean Girls are now the victims of being bullied, and death threats have been made against them.
I'm not endorsing bullying the bullies. I understand why the lawyer came out and said this. He wants to draw upon some kind of sympathy for the Mean Girls when their trial begins.
How, exactly, do you expect anyone to have sympathy for these girls? They are not victims. Yes, they're being exposed to the same bullying that brought about the suicide of Phoebe Prince, but they'll survive it. Why? Because they will be getting the help Phoebe Prince should have received. These girls will have support from their family, and be watched over closely at school to make sure nothing happens to these girls. The school is clearly going to try and rectify it's biggest mistake (not putting an end to the bullying of Phoebe Prince) by protecting the Mean Girls from being bullied themselves. Their parents are going to lend support, and a shoulder to lean and cry on. This isn't an indictment on Phoebe Prince's mother as not showing support to her daughter. Teenagers won't tell you what they don't want you to know. Phoebe Prince was bullied, was most likely ashamed that she was getting bullied, and that is why after three months she told her mother what was going on, a week before her death. The bullying of Phoebe Prince was not common knowledge until she died. Because this story has been brought to the attention of the country, the parents of the bullies can now support their children. Where was the support for Phoebe Prince?
When the school was informed of the bullying Phoebe Prince was receiving, the school said they took care of it. New details came out today about the last days of Phoebe Prince's life, that the Mean Girls confronted and bullied Phoebe Prince in the library and in the bathroom. The school handled the issue? How is that? Not only did the bullying NOT stop, it was STILL occuring DURING school hours. I've been in trouble in school before also. If you are not a frequent visitor to the principal, vice principal, whatever, you are going to get a five minute lecture, and slap on the wrist, and sent on your way. Clearly this is what happened with the Mean Girls.
How am I supposed to feel any kind of sympathy for the Mean Girls? The Mean Girls mentally abused Phoebe Prince to the point of death. Phoebe Prince didn't have anyone to help her, even when the school faculty knew of the bullying. The support being given to the Mean Girls is done in retrospect. The school knew they were wrong in not taking better, and more appropriate steps in stopping the bullying, so now they are taking the protection of the Mean Girls to a new level to make sure they don't get pushed as far as Phoebe Prince was pushed. If the roles were reversed, would their parents know they were being bullied? Most likely not. The consequences of reporting bullying, and not having it crushed immediately, are far worse then if you don't report the bullying. There is only so much someone can take. Bullying is far different from when most of us were growing up. Back then, and this is only going back roughly fifteen years ago, bullying pretty much stayed at school. It's not that way anymore. Everyone has a cell phone. Everyone has a Facebook page, or a My Space page, or both. If a bully wants to get to you, they will get to you. There is no way out unless the problem is exposed and obliterated quickly, and immediately.
I also find it hard to give them sympathy when this is all going to go away for them with time. Their lives will go on. But Phoebe Prince is still dead. They most likely won't serve any form of jail time, or actual repercussions stemming from their bullying. But Phoebe Prince is still dead. They should be convicted on felony charges of civil rights violations. Make them put into writing when applying to jobs or colleges that they were convicted of a felony, and what that felony was. Make them remember the price of what their bullying was. Their loves will go on, and may be difficult, but they go on. Phoebe Prince is still dead.
I titled this Sympathy For The Devil, not because I think the Mean Girls are the Devil, but because of the correlation between the two. When I think about the saying 'Sympathy for the Devil' it makes me think that the Devil wants sympathy for being the Devil. He is not bad, but his job is the exact opposite of what God's is (no matter what form of Devil or God you want to use) and therefore is forced into being bad, and doing bad things. He doesn't really mean the things he says that are harmful. He doesn't want to do the things that he does that are evil. It's just his nature. The Mean Girls may not have wanted to push Phoebe Prince into suicide. They may not have wanted Phoebe Prince to fall so far into depression. Their actions did all the talking for them. So now they are being bullied. Their actions have been turned back onto them. So now we should feel sorry for them? I can't do that. The bullies are now bullied themselves. At least they will live through it and continue on with their lives. Phoebe Prince will not.
I'm not endorsing bullying the bullies. I understand why the lawyer came out and said this. He wants to draw upon some kind of sympathy for the Mean Girls when their trial begins.
How, exactly, do you expect anyone to have sympathy for these girls? They are not victims. Yes, they're being exposed to the same bullying that brought about the suicide of Phoebe Prince, but they'll survive it. Why? Because they will be getting the help Phoebe Prince should have received. These girls will have support from their family, and be watched over closely at school to make sure nothing happens to these girls. The school is clearly going to try and rectify it's biggest mistake (not putting an end to the bullying of Phoebe Prince) by protecting the Mean Girls from being bullied themselves. Their parents are going to lend support, and a shoulder to lean and cry on. This isn't an indictment on Phoebe Prince's mother as not showing support to her daughter. Teenagers won't tell you what they don't want you to know. Phoebe Prince was bullied, was most likely ashamed that she was getting bullied, and that is why after three months she told her mother what was going on, a week before her death. The bullying of Phoebe Prince was not common knowledge until she died. Because this story has been brought to the attention of the country, the parents of the bullies can now support their children. Where was the support for Phoebe Prince?
When the school was informed of the bullying Phoebe Prince was receiving, the school said they took care of it. New details came out today about the last days of Phoebe Prince's life, that the Mean Girls confronted and bullied Phoebe Prince in the library and in the bathroom. The school handled the issue? How is that? Not only did the bullying NOT stop, it was STILL occuring DURING school hours. I've been in trouble in school before also. If you are not a frequent visitor to the principal, vice principal, whatever, you are going to get a five minute lecture, and slap on the wrist, and sent on your way. Clearly this is what happened with the Mean Girls.
How am I supposed to feel any kind of sympathy for the Mean Girls? The Mean Girls mentally abused Phoebe Prince to the point of death. Phoebe Prince didn't have anyone to help her, even when the school faculty knew of the bullying. The support being given to the Mean Girls is done in retrospect. The school knew they were wrong in not taking better, and more appropriate steps in stopping the bullying, so now they are taking the protection of the Mean Girls to a new level to make sure they don't get pushed as far as Phoebe Prince was pushed. If the roles were reversed, would their parents know they were being bullied? Most likely not. The consequences of reporting bullying, and not having it crushed immediately, are far worse then if you don't report the bullying. There is only so much someone can take. Bullying is far different from when most of us were growing up. Back then, and this is only going back roughly fifteen years ago, bullying pretty much stayed at school. It's not that way anymore. Everyone has a cell phone. Everyone has a Facebook page, or a My Space page, or both. If a bully wants to get to you, they will get to you. There is no way out unless the problem is exposed and obliterated quickly, and immediately.
I also find it hard to give them sympathy when this is all going to go away for them with time. Their lives will go on. But Phoebe Prince is still dead. They most likely won't serve any form of jail time, or actual repercussions stemming from their bullying. But Phoebe Prince is still dead. They should be convicted on felony charges of civil rights violations. Make them put into writing when applying to jobs or colleges that they were convicted of a felony, and what that felony was. Make them remember the price of what their bullying was. Their loves will go on, and may be difficult, but they go on. Phoebe Prince is still dead.
I titled this Sympathy For The Devil, not because I think the Mean Girls are the Devil, but because of the correlation between the two. When I think about the saying 'Sympathy for the Devil' it makes me think that the Devil wants sympathy for being the Devil. He is not bad, but his job is the exact opposite of what God's is (no matter what form of Devil or God you want to use) and therefore is forced into being bad, and doing bad things. He doesn't really mean the things he says that are harmful. He doesn't want to do the things that he does that are evil. It's just his nature. The Mean Girls may not have wanted to push Phoebe Prince into suicide. They may not have wanted Phoebe Prince to fall so far into depression. Their actions did all the talking for them. So now they are being bullied. Their actions have been turned back onto them. So now we should feel sorry for them? I can't do that. The bullies are now bullied themselves. At least they will live through it and continue on with their lives. Phoebe Prince will not.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
MTV Generation Killed MTV
How sad is that? Most of the people who are going to read this blog grew up watching MTV. I remember watching the Beach House during the Summer while cleaning the house after school, and jamming out to Summertime by DJ Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince. So what happened? The people who grew up watching MTV went to college. Became executives, took over MTV and for some reason thought shows like 'Date My Mom' and 'Room Raiders' were BETTER then playing music videos. When your name is Music Television, shouldn't you be playing music?
Granted, some of the videos put out today by musicians aren't exactly the best, a little weird, a little irreverant. What happened to the days when music videos actually told a story? The best examples are Wham's Careless Whisper, Michael Jackson's The Way You Make Me Feel, and Guns and Roses November Rain. Instead we're stuck with Telephone by Lady Gaga (I like the song, but the video is kinda weird, and has practically ntohing to do with what the lyrics talk about) and BUttons by The Pussycat Dolls. They're singing about a guy who talks a lot of junk, and won't follow through. Is it that hard to feature them in a club with an air of sexual frustration because the guy is chump? What happened to the days of ZZ Top doing their spin on Cinderella?
The quality of music videos has declined, but is that a reason to remove them from the air entirely? MTV and the MTV Generation is an abusive relationship like that of Ike and Tina Turner, Chris Brown and Rihanna. The MTV Generation loves MTV so much, they couldn't help but destroy it. By taking off the very essence of a channel called Music Television, they have beaten up, stripped down, and kicked out something that was supposed to be a channel teens and young adults could relate to, it has been turned into a Jerry Springer version of Reality TV. The Discovery channel has it's own reality TV series, but it doesn't detract from what the channel is essentially.
The MTV Generation somewhere along the way lost their way. It's all about making money now. Clearly, these executives think music videos don't make enough money. So they have to flood the channel with some of the worst programming ever. What exactly was the point of Total Request Live? Watched it once or twice, I became annoyed when they would have a new song on, that I liked, and show a 30 second clip before going back to Carson Daly....What was the point in that? That's like turning on the TV to see Castle, or V, or Scrubs, but instead of the show playing for 45 minutes in an hour, it playes for 15 minutes, and you get 45 minutes of commercials.
The MTV Generation grew up. It was going to happen, it was inevitable. The sad part is, the MTV Generation grew up and became money grubbing sell outs and killed one of the greatest things to come out of the last century, especially in the 80's...MTV.
Granted, some of the videos put out today by musicians aren't exactly the best, a little weird, a little irreverant. What happened to the days when music videos actually told a story? The best examples are Wham's Careless Whisper, Michael Jackson's The Way You Make Me Feel, and Guns and Roses November Rain. Instead we're stuck with Telephone by Lady Gaga (I like the song, but the video is kinda weird, and has practically ntohing to do with what the lyrics talk about) and BUttons by The Pussycat Dolls. They're singing about a guy who talks a lot of junk, and won't follow through. Is it that hard to feature them in a club with an air of sexual frustration because the guy is chump? What happened to the days of ZZ Top doing their spin on Cinderella?
The quality of music videos has declined, but is that a reason to remove them from the air entirely? MTV and the MTV Generation is an abusive relationship like that of Ike and Tina Turner, Chris Brown and Rihanna. The MTV Generation loves MTV so much, they couldn't help but destroy it. By taking off the very essence of a channel called Music Television, they have beaten up, stripped down, and kicked out something that was supposed to be a channel teens and young adults could relate to, it has been turned into a Jerry Springer version of Reality TV. The Discovery channel has it's own reality TV series, but it doesn't detract from what the channel is essentially.
The MTV Generation somewhere along the way lost their way. It's all about making money now. Clearly, these executives think music videos don't make enough money. So they have to flood the channel with some of the worst programming ever. What exactly was the point of Total Request Live? Watched it once or twice, I became annoyed when they would have a new song on, that I liked, and show a 30 second clip before going back to Carson Daly....What was the point in that? That's like turning on the TV to see Castle, or V, or Scrubs, but instead of the show playing for 45 minutes in an hour, it playes for 15 minutes, and you get 45 minutes of commercials.
The MTV Generation grew up. It was going to happen, it was inevitable. The sad part is, the MTV Generation grew up and became money grubbing sell outs and killed one of the greatest things to come out of the last century, especially in the 80's...MTV.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Phoebe Prince, Cyber Bullying, And The Failure Of The Educational System
Phoebe Prince is not just a victim of bullies, and the new ways you can be bullied, she is also a victim of the schools failure to provide an environment that should be considered safe for kids of all ages to gather. I understand why Phoebe Prince committed suicide. When every single day of your existence you are tortured verbally and mentally, and you have no way to get away, what other option is there? Everyone has been bullied at one time or another. So you know that you can't go to an authority figure to try and get this settled. The repercussions are minor, and insignificant, and you just pissed off your bullies even more. The consequences of reporting your bullies, and getting them in trouble is much worse then trying to deal with the bullying day in and day out.
Phoebe Prince told her mother what was going with these three girls, known as the Mean Girls, and the mother calls the school. According to the school, they took care of the issue. A week later, Phoebe Prince hangs herself after an incident after school. Walking home, the Mean Girls drove by, threw a drink at her, and verbally assaulted her. Calling her an 'Irish whore' and 'Irish slut' and the back breaker, 'you should just kill yourself.' So how exactly did the school take care of this issue? Clearly whatever was said to the Mean Girls was most likely along the lines of 'Stop bullying Phoebe Prince. You have after school detention. Now go out and be all you can be.' What? How about, the mother called the school, TRUSTING the school to watch out for her daughter's well being, to put an end to the bullying, why not call the parents of the Mean Girls and inform them of their kids actions? Just show them the Facebook page. Clearly that did not happen. I'm willing to bet, that when the Mean Girls found out Phoebe Prince killed herself that their first thought was not of remorse, and second guessing what they had done. I'm pretty sure they had to stifle a laugh because of how far they were able to push Phoebe Prince.
Speaking of the parents, maybe the school did call the parents of the Mean Girls. They clearly didn't do anything at all either. The bullying didn't stop, and now a life has ended prematurely, and should be held over their heads. Too many times in today's society parents want to blame everything and anything but themselves for their children's actions and reactions. It was the video games! It's that damn rap music! How about trying to be a PARENT instead of their friend? Stop buying your kids new cars, and giving them cell phones. Make them EARN the car. Just handing your children anything they want is not going to help prepare them for life on their own when things get really tough. And why exactly do teenagers need cell phones? If they're at school, and you need to get a hold of them, call the school. If they want to talk to their friends, give them their own land line at home. If they want to go out with friends, give them your cell phone. There is no reason for teenagers, living at home, to have cell phones. Nothing that could happen during the course of the day is THAT important where they need to have a cell phone with them. Parents need to be more active in their children's lives, and instead of handing them whatever they want, when they want, they need to be shown you are the authority here. What you do will have repercussions. If those parents were contacted about the bullying, they had the power to stop it, and they didn't.
The Mean Girls have been brought up on charges of Violating Civil Rights. What exactly does that mean? Will the Mean Girls carry a black mark on their permanent record from here on out? or is this one of those crimes where they're going to serve community service, be given a fine, and it goes away after some time? What good would that do? The parents will just throw money at a lawyer to get any sentence reduced, pay the fine, and brush the whole thing under a rug. Phoebe Prince is dead because of these three girls. There should be a charge added to the Violating Civil Rights charge...Manslaughter. The definition of manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation, either express or implied; distinguished from murder, which requires malicious intent. Put that mark on their record. Sure it'll make their life more difficult when applying for jobs and such, but they robbed a young girl of her innocence and her life. They robbed a mother of key moments in her daughter's life, like graduating high school and college, getting married, and even becoming a grandmother. These three girls pushed Phoebe Prince over the edge, and her life ended. Her mother's life is now shattered. These three girls have destroyed two lives, not just one. So make things difficult for them. This is not something that should be swept away after a few years. They should carry the burden of what Phoebe Prince could have become, they should carry the burden knowing that they robbed a mother of her child. No parent should ever out live their children. To have one taken away as a result of such harsh and cruel manner is a monumental tragedy.
The school Superintendent has said there will be no consequences given out to the staff of the school. This is absolutely absurd! There is more to being a teacher then teaching reading, writing, arithmetic, and science. They take care of others people children for almost 8 hours a day, for 5 days a week. They are supposed to help shape the minds of today's youth. What kind of shape are they molding when they sit idly by as kids berate other kids to the point of suicide? Stop hiding in your classroom, and be involved with what these kids are doing in between classes, and after school. Part of the problem here is, once again, the parents of the students. It's discouraged that teachers have a Facebook or MySpace account based on what kids can claim was said to them from the teacher. Granted, there are probably instances where the teacher did something wrong. But what about the times the student dislikes the teacher, and is trying to get them in trouble? Student A is a bully, and has been picking on Student B all semester. Student A picks a fight with Student B and Teacher X steps in and breaks up the fight. Student A has a bruise on his upper arm from Teacher X. Teacher X then gets sued by the parents for being too forceful with their kid. He broke up a fight your kid started, and you're going to sue the teacher? How would you expect that fight to be broken up? Use the Jaws of Life to separate the two? Who knows what would happen if the teacher stands by as one kid pummels the other. But this is something teachers have to worry about. How can they show any form of authority, if when they actually do flex the authoritative muscle, the parents castrate the teacher publicly with a lawsuit, even if their kid is wrong?
The entire faculty should be reprimanded for basically turning a blind eye, and not trying to help Phoebe Prince. The School Superintendent should resign, because a school under his watch performed woefully in protecting one of it's students. The three girls, the Mean Girls, should have to carry around a big black mark on their record so they can be reminded of what they have done, and what they stole from a family. The parents of the bullies should have to suffer some form of consequence for being negligent as to what their own children were doing. Everyone should be held accountable and made an example of in order to ensure these things from ever happening again. Bullying is something that is, unfortunately, a timeless tradition. It will never stop. However, consequences need to be developed, and displayed on a public forum to everyone, to show what could happen if you go too far. Teachers, parents, and students, should all held accountable for the loss of a life. No one should ever have to feel like they have no way out at such a young age.
Phoebe Prince is the 21st century version of Jeremy by Pearl Jam. Jeremy is based upon a small, true story seen in a newspaper. The boy's name was Jeremy Wade Delle. He was 16. He was described as quiet and always acting sad. He stood in the front of his English class, stuck the barrel of a .357 Magnum Revolver in his mouth, and killed himself. It should not take a story like this to evoke changes in the way things are done.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Shroud of Turin
At work today, there was a news report on Good Morning America about a documentary coming to the History channel. This documentary will use the Shroud of Turin, and Graphic Artists to reconstruct what Jesus's face actually looked like. Of course, Good Morning America did not reveal the finished product.
Stop reading here if you don't want to get into a 'controversial' debate, or are going to consider what I am about to write blasphemous.
During the report, there were clips from the documentary featuring the artists, short and rough comments on how they are able to remake Jesus's face through how the cloth laid on him, and brief looks at how the artists were working on it. Disregard the idea that the Shroud of Turin MIGHT be a fake. While there is a possibility that Jesus was not wrapped in that shroud, or that it's not the correct shroud, this is not the point of this blog.
The point of this blog is...Why is Jesus shown as a Caucasian?
First and foremost, I think this discredits a piece of what the documentary is trying to achieve, because instead of using details from the cloth, there is a bias present. It's a relatively new concept that Jesus might not have been Caucasian. I'm not saying the people working on this project are racist, but I am saying it seems like they are pulling from some form of personal image of what they think Jesus may have looked like. Granted, I have not seen this documentary. But in the end, I think the only way to really do it justice, is give the final product a change in skin color, to represent the dominant racial skin color in the area at the time.
Doing some research, it's not totally inconceivable that there are people of lighter skin tone during the time of Jesus. Slavery is something that had taken place all over the known world. Vikings would typically enslave anyone who they conquered militarily. According to the History of Slavery post on Wikipedia.com, 25% of the Roman Empire's population, and 30% - 40 % of Italy were slaves. Considering how far reaching the Roman Empire was, and the far reach of Alexander The Great's rule, it is entirely possible that at some point in time, slaves from other parts of the world could be brought into other lands. Could it be that Joseph's and Mary's ancestors were slaves, that somehow escaped/were liberated from their slave titles, in order to become free people? Sure. Likely? Not sure if I buy into that.
According to biblical lore, Mary was a virgin and was impregnated by the Holy Ghost. So Joseph had nothing to do with the birth. OK, take him out of the picture. Now, in the Bible that I have next to me, it states that David was going to divorce Mary because she was pregnant. An angel informed him that Mary is pregnant with the Holy Spirit, and will give birth to God, and that she has committed no sin. OK, so he believes the angel. But now I ask...If Joseph and Mary were not Caucasian, would Jesus still be born as a Caucasian? I'm going to say no. There are some people in this day and age who still disapprove of interracial marriages and dating. So imagine what would have happened if Joseph and Mary both were of a Middle Eastern descent, and Jesus was born as a Caucasian? Scandalous! Or even reverse it, Joseph and Mary were Caucasian, and Jesus was born Middle Eastern. Even though neither parent really had a hand in the creation of Baby Jesus, I hardly believe that God would leave them flapping in the wind with a baby not of the same race as them. That being said, you can only assume that Jesus was of the same racial make up of at least Mary, take out interracial coupling because this is March of 0 B.C. and most likely, at the worst, it was frowned upon (to put it lightly.)
The last possible solution as to why Jesus could have been Caucasian would be that Joseph and Mary's ancestors were in fact some form of nobility coming from Italy or Greece. This would allow them to travel to the new areas occupied by the Roman and Greek Empires, settle down in an area like the Middle East, and lay down their roots. Considering, babies born to slaves were then dubbed slaves them selves, I have a very difficult time finding a way for someone to break out of slavery one way or another, and be anything BUT a beggar.
I'm not saying Jesus WASN'T white. But I do want to know where the stereotype of a Caucasian Jesus comes from. Why is he Caucasian? Why is he not African-American? Why is he not Italian, or Greek? He could even be part Scandinavian for that matter. But where is it set in stone that Jesus HAS to be Caucasian?
Stop reading here if you don't want to get into a 'controversial' debate, or are going to consider what I am about to write blasphemous.
During the report, there were clips from the documentary featuring the artists, short and rough comments on how they are able to remake Jesus's face through how the cloth laid on him, and brief looks at how the artists were working on it. Disregard the idea that the Shroud of Turin MIGHT be a fake. While there is a possibility that Jesus was not wrapped in that shroud, or that it's not the correct shroud, this is not the point of this blog.
The point of this blog is...Why is Jesus shown as a Caucasian?
First and foremost, I think this discredits a piece of what the documentary is trying to achieve, because instead of using details from the cloth, there is a bias present. It's a relatively new concept that Jesus might not have been Caucasian. I'm not saying the people working on this project are racist, but I am saying it seems like they are pulling from some form of personal image of what they think Jesus may have looked like. Granted, I have not seen this documentary. But in the end, I think the only way to really do it justice, is give the final product a change in skin color, to represent the dominant racial skin color in the area at the time.
Doing some research, it's not totally inconceivable that there are people of lighter skin tone during the time of Jesus. Slavery is something that had taken place all over the known world. Vikings would typically enslave anyone who they conquered militarily. According to the History of Slavery post on Wikipedia.com, 25% of the Roman Empire's population, and 30% - 40 % of Italy were slaves. Considering how far reaching the Roman Empire was, and the far reach of Alexander The Great's rule, it is entirely possible that at some point in time, slaves from other parts of the world could be brought into other lands. Could it be that Joseph's and Mary's ancestors were slaves, that somehow escaped/were liberated from their slave titles, in order to become free people? Sure. Likely? Not sure if I buy into that.
According to biblical lore, Mary was a virgin and was impregnated by the Holy Ghost. So Joseph had nothing to do with the birth. OK, take him out of the picture. Now, in the Bible that I have next to me, it states that David was going to divorce Mary because she was pregnant. An angel informed him that Mary is pregnant with the Holy Spirit, and will give birth to God, and that she has committed no sin. OK, so he believes the angel. But now I ask...If Joseph and Mary were not Caucasian, would Jesus still be born as a Caucasian? I'm going to say no. There are some people in this day and age who still disapprove of interracial marriages and dating. So imagine what would have happened if Joseph and Mary both were of a Middle Eastern descent, and Jesus was born as a Caucasian? Scandalous! Or even reverse it, Joseph and Mary were Caucasian, and Jesus was born Middle Eastern. Even though neither parent really had a hand in the creation of Baby Jesus, I hardly believe that God would leave them flapping in the wind with a baby not of the same race as them. That being said, you can only assume that Jesus was of the same racial make up of at least Mary, take out interracial coupling because this is March of 0 B.C. and most likely, at the worst, it was frowned upon (to put it lightly.)
The last possible solution as to why Jesus could have been Caucasian would be that Joseph and Mary's ancestors were in fact some form of nobility coming from Italy or Greece. This would allow them to travel to the new areas occupied by the Roman and Greek Empires, settle down in an area like the Middle East, and lay down their roots. Considering, babies born to slaves were then dubbed slaves them selves, I have a very difficult time finding a way for someone to break out of slavery one way or another, and be anything BUT a beggar.
I'm not saying Jesus WASN'T white. But I do want to know where the stereotype of a Caucasian Jesus comes from. Why is he Caucasian? Why is he not African-American? Why is he not Italian, or Greek? He could even be part Scandinavian for that matter. But where is it set in stone that Jesus HAS to be Caucasian?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)