What's Your Mix? A Filipina with at Least One Spanish Ancestor. So What?

A week or so ago, Bayo launched an advertising campaign that sparked outrage among Filipino Internet users. The advertisements have Anne Curtis' sister Jasmine Curtis-Smith and a number of mestiza models, each executing the theme “What’s Your Mix?” Each model are extremely beautiful and dressed in Bayo’s latest items. Each model is accompanied with curious captions describing their mixed heritage—in Jasmine Curtis-Smith’s case: “50% Filipino, 50% Australian.”

It’s difficult to pinpoint the reason, at first; but I instinctively knew this was definitely offensive. There was something seriously wrong about these models being labeled as “60% African, 40% Filipino” or “80% Chinese, 20% Filipino.” As far as I see it, this advertising campaign completely misses the discrepancy between race and nationality. But then, this article reacted to it:

http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/6560-of-half-bloods-and-hypocrisy

According to the author, those who complained about the campaign are hypocrites for being offended at all. In a nutshell, the author believes that: 

1.       The campaign does not intend to offend anyone, and it doesn’t claim that the models are beautiful because they are mestizas. 

2.       People who are offended are being oversensitive. 

3.       The people who are offended shouldn’t be offended when they yearn to be white anyway.

I disagree.

I think intentions are irrelevant; even if they didn’t mean to give unfortunate implications, they are there. Advertisements are designed to appeal to the psyche. These images appeal to hidden desires to be like the models in the advertisements. It is practically impossible view these images objectively. Yes, it is true that each ad states a fact; but can you expect ANYONE to NOT see anything else?

The message that the theme “What’s Your Mix?” is getting across is that the creativity of mixing and matching seemingly incompatible items of clothing makes a perfect mix. On that line of thinking, YES, the ad campaign strongly implies that these models are beautiful because they are mestizas. Using models of mixed race and addressing this fact revive the guilt Filipinas have about the still-undying notion that mestizas are more beautiful than purebred chocolate-skinned, ebony-haired Filipinas with coffee-bean eyes.

Furthermore, why is it necessary to bring RACE of all themes as a metaphor for mixing and matching clothes? Aren't these advertisers aware that in America, these kinds of thinking are worth banning because it hurts people's feelings? Yes, we don't live in America, but we have racial issues of our own. We don't need to ignite them in things as insignificant as advertising.

Let me just point out that people are not angry because they want to believe they are more beautiful than these half-breed models. They know full well that these models are beautiful because of racial mixing. What they are offended with is the implication that they are NOT as beautiful because they are, as far as they know, are purebred Filipinas. The phrase "What's Your Mix?" sounds like an accusation, an attack.

Let's say there's a girl who is short, has even chocolate brown skin, frizzy ebony hair, a small mouth with thick lips, and a button nose, and coffee-bean eyes; what do you think she would feel if she is confronted with the question "What's your mix?" while there are extremely beautiful mixed race models in her face? Wouldn't you think she would be humiliated? "Oh, my God! I don't have a 'mix.' What am I, then? I must be unimportant." They don’t want that. They don't need that. They don't deserve that.

Yes, it is hypocritical to claim this campaign is racist when most of us still cling to two contrasting notions that are fundamentally racist: that purebred Filipinas are more beautiful and don't need much makeup, and that purebred Filipinas are NOT as beautiful so we need to bleach our skin and hair and wear blue contact lenses. However these two notions are only symptoms and do not quite address the underlying issues that borne them.

What this advertising campaign poses to us Filipinas is the Doña Victorina mentality that we want to scrape off but can't—not at the moment. It was foolish of Bayo to construct their advertising campaign this way and expect people to not react the way they did.

Most Filipinos nowadays would rather just identify has Filipino. Yes, it is true that we have our brand of racism, but these hasn't been addressed yet because the media perpetuates it, and we haven't yet had a serious talk that addresses the issues on our race, our national identity, and our worth. However, most people identify Filipinos as a nation of people of mixed race, all unified with having at least one ancestor tracing their lineage from this tiny archipelago in Southeast Asia. But if you want to be purist about it, we also identify Filipino as these Malayo-Austronesian people with the physical qualities I've explained at least twice before. Yes, we all need to know that we shouldn't rest our worth on our appearances alone. Yes, we are yet to have a concrete and consistent national identity. But we don't need or deserve to get something as wrong as "What's Your Mix?" slammed onto our faces like cream pie.

Most importantly, no one, not even these gorgeous models, deserves to be reduced to an equation. So what if Jasmine Curtis-Smith has a Filipina mother and a white Australian father? Isn't she a whole person with as much beauty, charisma, and promise as her famous sister Anne? So what if I had a Spanish ancestor that gave me an unusual look that some people do not immediately recognize me as a Filipina? I am still born and raised in this beautiful country and a colorful history. I am still me, a girl who wants to become a great novelist someday. Shouldn't that be more important than the race of my ancestors?

Further reading:  http://www.rappler.com/life-and-style/136-technology/viral/6559-viral-what-s-your-mix-campaign-earns-ire-of-netizens

The Real Injustice Against the Hunger Games Tributes (Review Part 2)

The second part of my review of The Hunger Games is long overdue, so I might as well finish it now. I have said in my previous entry that while I am willing to give The Hunger Games a chance by reading the book and really getting to know the protagonist beyond what I see on the screen. However, I am very much put off by the excessive focus we have on Katniss Everdeen. I think it would have been much better if there was no specific protagonist at all; that way, we can see what each of the twenty-four Tributes are going through in this barbarous competition.

I came to the theater knowing nothing beyond the basic fact that there is a gladiator-like competition involving teenagers and older children while one of them serves as the audience’s eye. I wasn’t expecting to be expected to root for this one character, who is “talented”archer and huntress Katniss Everdeen, who lives in District 12 of the post-apocalyptic nation of Panem. The concept is clever, and this highly imaginative vision of the future is surprisingly believable. I even told my sister that Lady Gaga might be a cultural icon to this world like Marilyn Monroe, Jackie O, Audrey Hepburn, or Elizabeth Taylor is to us. And it’s believable that way, and I like how it went that way.

Then, we are introduced to the mechanics of the Hunger Games. I love how intentionally laughable it was. The concept alone is an insult to anyone forced to participate. By the time this is revealed, we have already been introduced to our “heroine” Katniss Everdeen, her pseudo-boyfriendGale Hawthorne, and her sister Primrose, who has been dreading the day she is old enough to be selected as a participant in the Hunger Games.

Then, when it was revealed that there are twenty-four other characters participating in the Hunger Games, I was thrilled. Meeting new characters is like meeting new friends for me. I was looking forward to learning about where they come from, what they are leaving, and what they feel about being there.

After already witnessing how the Harvest works (a cruel draw where their names are simply picked out from a fishbowl), I felt concern over the twenty-two Tributes from the eleven other Districts. What did they feel when they got chosen? Are they as sure as Katniss about winning? Oh, there’s a gorgeous blond boy; this one’s bound to get a lot of screen time.

Alas, we were treated to an hour or so of Katniss trekking, Katniss running, Katniss sleeping, and Katniss evading her “murderous” opponents. This is the point where I get ticked off. For the next several minutes, about five or seven of the remaining Tributes (practically ten of them died in the first few minutes of the tournament) stalk Katniss and attempt to kill her because she is apparently the strongest and most dangerous of them all. I am prompted to ask why considering she hasn’t done anything vaguely threatening except piss off the leaders behind the Hunger Games. Or was it that they’re unrealistically impressed by her feisty attitude?

But what I’m even more irritated with is that it’s obvious that the story is turning these characters out to be villains. Why? Weren’t they also forcefully torn from their homes to compete in this ridiculous competition? Aren’t they only doing the only thing they can do to survive? Yes, I can see the malicious smiles on their faces, but I figure that’s their way of dealing with their fears. Isn’t the Hunger Games an insult to all of them equally? Why is this story trying to make me root for Katniss? What's making me so angry considering these facts, is that, as my best friend has said: "Yeah, nobody gives a fuck about how THEY FEEL."

I am more interested in these other characters. I want to meet them. I want to get to know them. I want to know of their hopes and fears. I want to know how they saw their future before getting drawn into the Hunger Games. If they have any hope of winning, what do they want to do with their victory? I am never given the answers to any of those because this story is giving unnecessary focus on Katniss, and I am not even sure why!

For the next few months, I was convinced this was a flaw with film adaptations of novels. You really can’t expect to everything to be neatly translated between the two mediums. Maybe it was deliberate to help non-readers understand what was going on. Once again, I was sorely mistaken.

It was only days ago when I came upon a comment—in YouTube, I think. I don’t quite remember what I was looking at—perhaps a Hunger Games-related news clip or an interview with the cast. Maybe it was a feature article from an entirely different website. Either way, there was some sort of argument going on in the comments section. I didn’t bother with taking a good look at what they were arguing about, but the highest rated comment is apparently part of them. It said: “… Those kids who enjoy killing in the Hunger Games, they are the villains!”

The V-word is an ugly word. I prefer not to use that word except with a cast of characters in certain genres, and the genre of The Hunger Games isn’t one of them. As far as I can tell, those kids who “enjoy” killing in the Hunger Games aren’t enjoying it any more than Katniss does. But they live in a cruel world, and they understand it is the only way they can survive. They know they are helpless now that they’re in the Hunger Games. They might as well do it with a smile because they know moaning about it isn’t going to do anything lest they already have a knife to their throat.

I dunno, maybe that’s just me. Maybe it’s the adaptation. Maybe it’s both. Either way, I refuse to believe that these kids are villains. They’re desperate. They’re constantly on the verge of death. What else would you do if you were in their shoes? I know Katniss must be scared having to put up with them, but it’s not like they entered themselves in the Hunger Games just to kill her. Why is this narrative trying to give me that impression? It’s just so wrong.