In Defense of the Princesses (Part 1)

In recent years, the Classic Disney Princesses have gotten flak from modern/contemporary/present-day feminist audiences for being poor role models for their target audience. The three most memorable Disney Princesses Snow White, Cinderella, and Sleeping Beauty (or Princess Aurora/Briar Rose, whatever you prefer to call her) are passive and useless at best and, at worst, exactly what feminists fight against. They represent the very problems that feminists in the 70s struggled so hard to surpass: specifically, being valued for nothing more than their beauty and/or becoming passive homemakers who get no respect for their hard work.

The more recent Princesses Jasmine, Belle, and Ariel are better received by their modern audiences, but the feminists of their time invariably notice very non-feminist qualities about them: for an affluent and loved daughter, Princess Jasmine rejects responsibility and falls in love with a guy who lies to her; Belle supposedly "craves adventure in that great, wide somewhere" but still becomes somebody's "little wife" in the end; Ariel “gives up her perfect life for a vagina and a man she doesn't even know.” (quoted from Nostalgia Chick)

The latter years of the 1990s produced movies of arguably lower quality but spawned significantly stronger female characters. In the most recent Disney Princess lineup, these include Pocahontas and Mulan. Even when you consider the nearly laughable quality of the movies they come from, they are undoubtedly better role models than their predecessors. But they receive significantly less exposure than their predecessors. Another legitimate Princess, Kida from Atlantis: The Lost Empire, is not even included in the lineup. What does this say about contemporary media making an impact on today's little girls?

Let me just put on the record that I am not inclined to call myself a feminist. I believe in the rights of women. However, the values women hold at certain points in history are not the same as those we have now. In the defense of the six central members of the Disney Princess franchise, they just didn't have everything figured out yet.

I realize that the Disney Princess franchise is merely a giant advertisement to encourage younger families to watch these classic Disney movies that people have loved for generations. However, with the rise of feminism in the 70s and overall cynicism as popularized by grunge and Daria in the 90s that carried over to sarcastic Internet comedy in the 2000s, the Disney Princess franchise became an appropriate target for Internet critics and feminists. Disney Princesses are characterized as beautiful female leads in a movie where the male hero is usually more complex characters than their respective partners. Despite their distinctive and strong personalities, notable Disney Princesses are ultimately the male hero’s prize for a conflict effectively resolved with violence and celebrated with a kiss.

While this criticism is a legitimate concern as the powerful influence of these movies can dangerously warp any child’s perception of what love is before she can experience it, a lot of detractors forget that classic Disney movies fall under the category of fantasy. It is entirely wish-fulfillment to be beautiful and be desirable for nothing else. It is also wish-fulfillment to meet a perfect match and never have to worry about developing pet peeves over your partner’s idiosyncrasies. Quite frankly, I think there’s nothing wrong with that. However, I don’t think the movies or the company behind them should be made accountable for a child’s disjointed perception about “true love.” The writers and animators behind these movies were clearly making do with the time and resources they have based on the attitudes and values that their milieu holds at the time these movies were created. As a fiction writer myself, I think it’s not fair to, for example, blame me for a child’s behavior later in life because my works featured literary tropes that would not have the same outcomes in real life. Parents, guardians, and more sensible peers are responsible in teaching children how to distinguish fantasy from reality. As Alice in Wonderland teaches us, fantasy does not belong in the realm of reality, and vice-versa.

While I agree that even fantastic tales have to have some measure of realism (i.e. believability), I believe it is unfair to demand that fairy tales conform to the attitudes and values of its modern readers. I believe that fairy tales, especially those as presented by the Walt Disney Studios, were envisioned according to the attitudes and values of the filmmakers and screenwriters at the time they were created. Therefore, I think they have to be respected for what they eventually became.

Princess Aurora: Shallow Love Interest or Broken Bird?

Among all the Disney Princesses, Princess Aurora, nicknamed Briar Rose by her fairy godmothers, get the strongest criticism for being nothing more than a plot device rather than a proper protagonist who actively influences the plot with her actions and decisions. In the process, the Three Good Fairies become the actual heroines of Sleeping Beauty, with Prince Philip as an effective avatar of St. George as he battles Maleficent as the Dragon who guards the Princess at the tower.

It’s quite easy to criticize Princess Aurora for these reasons. In addition, her most valuable assets are her Gift of Beauty and Gift of Song, both bestowed upon her by two of the three fairies. The narrative makes it seem that Briar Rose has absolutely no valuable character traits to speak of. (My sisters and I theorize that the third fairy Merryweather was going to give Aurora the Gift of Wisdom/Knowledge, but I digress.) However, as the story flashes forward to Aurora’s sixteenth birthday, we find that she turns out to be charming and cordial with a passionate streak worthy of any girl her age.

I admit it is difficult to determine specific personality traits with a few lines and one song, but based on the classic structure of fairy tales, the character design can speak a lot about what the character is like. Her beauty and blonde hair indicate a kind heart and innocent nature. Her deep purple eyes (colored black when zoomed out) indicate having rare qualities which, unfortunately, we never actually see up close. However, we do see some of these qualities during her screen time.

In her first song, “I Wonder,” Briar Rose sings of her desire to find true love. Critics love to call Aurora out for this, too, because she seems like she is a shallow girl who cares of nothing but dating someone. But let’s put this into perspective: Aurora has lived all sixteen years of her life in a secluded cottage in a thick evergreen forest with no social life except with three overprotective old ladies she isn’t even related to. She is obviously lonely—perhaps even depressed. At one point, she laments, “They never want me to meet anyone.” I don’t see anything wrong with a teenage girl craving romantic attention from a boy. It’s not only normal; it’s healthy. Like literally every other human being, fictional or otherwise, she has self-preservation instincts that can be followed by finding a mate to, potentially, have a family with.

However, having literally no prior experience with the opposite sex, she wouldn’t have any idea what is proper or not. She was understandably startled when Prince Philip showed up and turned her aria into a duet. However, she was also as understandably naïve and hungry for social contact that it takes only seconds for Prince Philip to attract her enough to waltz with him at the riverside and later invite him to dinner that same night. I know this isn’t something supposedly virtuous girls would do, but Aurora obviously doesn’t know that.

Besides, the narrative has to move forward at this point, so the filmmakers have to make do with the limited time they are allowed to extend the movie. In fairness to the filmmakers, they constructed this adaptation of Sleeping Beauty at the time when women were valued for their beauty and homemaking skills more than anything. It was hardly anyone’s fault that Aurora was the way she is; she and the filmmakers who came up with her screen portrayal are all just products of their milieu.

Let us also not forget that when the fairies finally tell her the truth about her past, she willingly but sadly accepts that she has to return to her father’s kingdom and never see the handsome young man with the red cloak again. I think this goes without saying that she is mature for her age and realizes that some things are worth sacrificing.

Cinderella: Mindless Daydreamer or Enduring Martyr?

Cinderella has the story that everyone recognizes the most: when a girl’s wealthy father marries a lady with two daughters of her own, the stepmother reveals her wickedness when the father dies and promptly turns the girl into a slave in her own home. This setup is an easy cause for much angst; however, Cinderella, like Aurora before her, remains cheerful and kindhearted as indicated by her blonde hair, blue eyes, and general beauty. Cinderella’s attitude toward her situation is cause for both praise and criticism. On one hand, she is a role model for not letting hardships get in the way of being the best person she can be. On the other hand, she lets her stepmother and stepsisters get away with abusing her and does nothing to better her situation, like perhaps run away.

It is important to remember that until the women’s rights movement beginning as recently as the 70s, women had very few career options. Professions traditionally regarded as “feminine” like nursing or teaching weren’t available to women in Cinderella’s time either because it required extensive education, which weren’t intended for women either. Women in Cinderella’s time were groomed to become wives and mothers and nothing more; they were conditioned to behave accordingly. Having been born a daughter of an affluent father and later brought up a slave to a wicked widowed stepmother, Cinderella has literally nowhere to go. If Cinderella runs away, her only option is to become a prostitute; she is obviously too proud and respectable for that kind of humiliation.

Her fantastically gentle attitude is another thing.

Her mantra is: “Someday, my dreams will come true.” After several viewings of the movie, it occurs to me that this is more of wishful thinking than any real attainable goal. Knowing that she would rather stay in her father’s house where she has food, clothing, and shelter, Cinderella has no choice but to make the best out of her horrible situation. What dreams does Cinderella actually have, we never really know. After quite a few viewings, I determine that Cinderella may or may not have any actual dreams to speak of. She only tells herself those words to make her feel better; otherwise, she will not be able to function and end up displeasing her already cruel stepmother.

Cinderella has the thankless job of attending to her stepmother and stepsisters’ every need in addition in keeping their enormous house spick and span. She does this all by herself, and each mistake leads to additional housework as punishment. If it weren’t for her attitude, she would have snapped a long time ago.

Considering this exceedingly horrible life, despite Cinderella’s attitude, she is actually quite tired of it. No wonder she broke down when her stepsisters ultimately prevented her from having exactly one night to have a good time.

Her “falling in love” with the Prince is a tricky issue to tackle. Is she starved for male affection like Aurora? Perhaps. Is it daddy issues? Maybe. There is realistically no excuse to declare she “loves” the Prince while they have only danced; and vice-versa. However, we can assume that they are genuinely attracted to one another, and the Prince took the glass slipper as an opportunity to get to know her. We are not given details of their courtship nor the time between when Cinderella fitted the glass slipper and when she married the Prince. However, the royal decree of fitting the glass slipper to every eligible maiden who attended the ball involves taking the perfect fit to be the Prince’s bride. I can forgive it because of time restrictions. As I have said before: this is fantasy. It does not have to be completely realistic.

Ariel: Just a Spoiled Teenager

Ariel’s character is as terrible as her voice is wonderful. The fiery redhead seventh and youngest daughter of King Triton is challenging to bring up. She is selfish and stubborn and her first appearance in the movie involved her completely neglecting a very important royal event. When her father aptly scolds her for this, she argues that “I am sixteen years old! I’m not a child!” She must think it must be incredibly mature of her to disregard the humiliation she just brought to her father and his Royal Court Composer. She apparently cannot grasp the concept that, while humans are truly fascinating creatures, they destroy as efficiently as they can create. Take note that Prince Eric’s ship is destroyed in the storm because it carried explosives, which are also invented by humans.

She develops a crush on Prince Eric and immediately decides: “Daddy, I love him!”

I honestly cannot defend this one. However, I can explain that the weakest point of any teenager’s personality is that they tend to be egocentric. Every one of us who have gone through this phase has experienced feeling that a scolding parent is a domineering authority figure with no regard for your feelings; it is only when we’re older that we learn that our parents are flawed human beings who are concerned for our well-being and we cannot grasp this fact fully.

Ariel’s behavior makes sense. Given her age and personality, she typically has poor capacity to see reason and instead acts on her feelings. This is exactly the same reason teen pregnancy rates remain high all over the world. How the team behind the movie presented this as raw, true love baffles me.

Belle: Something More

If you ask anyone who is their favorite Disney Princess, forward-thinking girls would choose Belle from Beauty and the Beast above everyone else. While she is the most beautiful girl in her village, she doesn’t care much about this fact and prefers reading. She knows that the people of her time disapprove of this behavior, but she doesn’t care either. She puts greater value in knowledge and wisdom than outer beauty, and it is something to admire. The courage she showed when offering herself to take her father’s place in the Beast’s prison is even more admirable.

However, critics of Beauty and the Beast are quick to point out that the main plot involved a glorified example of Stockholm syndrome. Stockholm syndrome is a psychological phenomenon in which a kidnapping victim develops feelings of compassion and protectiveness for her captors, going as far as defending him from the people seeking to punish him for his cruelty. Stockholm syndrome can develop when the kidnapper appeases his victim with token acts of kindness, which the Beast does display toward the middle of the narrative.

While these are all valid observations, people who claim Stockholm syndrome neglect a few important details in the narrative of Beauty and the Beast.

Belle is understandably scared and distrustful of the Beast, considering what he did to her beloved father. The Beast, on the other hand, has never been a nice guy entirely because he grew up incredibly spoiled and apparently never taught how to be considerate of others’ feelings and needs. However, when he effectively drove her away when he scared her off the West Wing, the Beast develops remorse over what he did and promptly goes out to rescue Belle from forest wolves. He didn’t do this to manipulate Belle to stay with him; he did it because he knew what scaring her off was wrong and he was sorry.

In a way, the Beast is nothing more than a spoiled brat. He uses his temper to get his way. He scares people into doing his bidding. He does exactly this when he scared Belle off the West Wing; but he realizes he went too far and decided to make amends. While he still fell back into his manipulative ways immediately afterwards when he growled at Belle while she is trying to clean his wounds, Belle puts her foot down: “You should learn to control your temper!”

This pivotal moment set the motion for personal conversion in the Beast. “I want to do something for her,” he confides in Cogsworth and Lumiere. As with his earlier rescuing of Belle from the wolves, the Beast’s subsequent series of kind deeds for her are genuine acts of kindness that his human heart is designed to make him do. In real life, when a kidnapper does the same, he is likely manipulating his victim to prevent her from running away. A kidnapper may also evoke sympathy from his victim, which the Beast clearly doesn’t. He opens his library, takes her to walks, and reads books with her to make her happy, not for his own benefit.

Belle, having always felt out of sync with everyone where she came from, starts to feel more and more comfortable with the Beast when he displays gentleness and kindness that the men in her village didn’t quite show to her. Her love for books doesn’t repel him; he encourages it. He didn’t open his library so she would throw herself in his arms; he did it because he knows it makes her happy. In return, she respects him for it.

Stockholm syndrome victims tend to feel they owe their attackers something in return for “being kind” to them. As with Christine Daaé in The Phantom of the Opera, Christine is torn between leaving the Phantom forever and staying with him as his only companion because she feels sorry for him. Belle, on the other hand, is unafraid to admit to the Beast that she misses her father; she is overjoyed when he finally frees her and displays no hesitation in leaving.

This doesn’t quite seem like Stockholm syndrome to me.

Another issue that people discuss about Belle is that she is a bit of a hypocrite. She rejects Gaston as a suitor, implying that she isn’t interested in romantic attachments in the first place. Her angry huffing following shortly after Gaston’s horrifying marriage proposal also implies Belle is offended at the thought of being nothing more than somebody’s wife. While this sends an empowering message to young girls, the happy ending in which she becomes somebody’s “little wife” anyway makes it appear she didn’t really accomplish her goal of “adventure in the great wide somewhere” and she’s okay with that.

On the contrary, I think she already had her adventure with everything that happened in the castle. She encountered the Beast and her firmness compelled him to be gentle. She got to experience a world where magic was real. In the process, she experienced the love of a man who respected her as a person rather than the man who wanted her as a baby-making sex trophy.

Jasmine: "I am not a prize to be won!"

Princess Jasmine was raised by her single dad the Sultan of Agrabah, who invites several suitors to the palace, so Jasmine could be married by the time she is nineteen years old. “I just want you to be taken care of,” the Sultan says sadly in the introductory sequence. Unfortunately for the Sultan, Jasmine has a mind of her own. She rejects every suitor (and there were many of them) and craves for the outside world. “I’ve never been outside the palace walls. I don’t even have any real friends,” she says. This is all very sad information, and I am absolutely not surprised that Jasmine tried to run away.

She catches the eye of the street rat Aladdin, and the feeling was mutual. When her plan was abruptly thwarted as it was already going so well, the story officially begins. Aladdin spends the rest of the story trying to win Jasmine’s heart, disguised as Prince Ali Ababwa. What follows is a very familiar fairy tale narrative structure in which the male hero (Aladdin) encounters a set of wacky and sometimes death-defying adventures with a help from his [magical] friends to win the girl. At this point, Jasmine goes from three-dimensional deuteragonist to one-dimensional prize trophy existing solely for Aladdin to acquire—or does she?

I agree that Jasmine’s role was limited and her roundness as a character was reduced to a few scenes, but I don’t think that makes her a “poor role model.” Critics claim that her romance with Aladdin was based on a great big lie. I disagree because Jasmine knew all along; in fact, she was genuinely upset when Aladdin lets the truth slip because he took her for a fool and she wasn’t. Jasmine can see through him and she loves him for his effort in trying to win her heart. What was really happening was that she was in love with him the whole time. She loved him for his kindness, his intelligence, and his honesty. She valued the third one so much she had to confront him for having to lie to her just to woo her. She knew he never had to.

Mulan: The Most Rare and Beautiful of All

Mulan is set apart from previous Disney Princesses with the fact that she isn’t actually a princess and that Mulan leads this epic feature classic as an action heroine rather than a love interest of a more complex male hero. Fa Mulan starts out as a teenage girl who fails the matchmaker’s inspection because of her lack of poise and sophistication, indicating she was meant for a non-traditional life path. Unlike Jasmine or Bella, Mulan isn’t openly rebellious of the society that expects her only to be some guy’s baby-making machine. In fact, she accepts the role, indicating that she has the capacity for responsibility and self-sacrifice. These qualities take full force when Mulan wears her father’s armor and sword and takes his place in the army. The rest of the story revolves around Mulan using brains as much as brawn to survive training and later the war. Mulan gains the respect of her comrades so much that they were willing to protect her even after she was revealed to be a woman. This successfully teaches girls that there are some things more important than snagging a boyfriend. This includes earning a few boy-friends who respect you as a person with integrity as much as a skillful coworker.

But oh, what is this? Mulan falls in love with the hunky Captain Li Shang? She invites him to dinner with her family in the end? What happened to rejecting arranged marriage? Unacceptable!

The complaint about Mulan having a love interest is shallow and minor, but it comes up with almost every Internet discussion about Disney’s Mulan so I have to address it. While fans of the movie generally do not agree with this claim, it is a particularly strong one.

Many feminists seem to equate feminism with rejecting all roles and stereotypes typically associated with women. These roles include being one half of a heterosexual relationship, so feminists tend to gravitate toward heroines who do not have a love interest—hence, the appeal of Merida and Elsa from Brave and Frozen respectively (more of that in the next blog). I agree that it is refreshing to see a heroine that is not bound to any love interest because it means she can hold her own as a whole person. However, I don’t see anything wrong with having a love interest per se.

In Mulan’s case, she has proven her worth to the entire Chinese Empire; how can Shang not resist extending his affections for the girl who has had a crush on him for some time now? Given Disney’s reward system when it comes to happy endings, it only makes sense that Mulan gets her guy on top of the respect and reverence of the entire nation.

Happily Ever After

The Disney Princesses have been part of our lives since Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs in 1937. These iconic Disney Classics were adapted with the same heart and whimsy as we have read them from storybooks. The Walt Disney Studios were clearly capturing the storybook elements as they present these tales to us with vibrant colors, sweet music, and grand scale storytelling. Before you start complaining about these movies or their characters not being realistic enough, maybe you should start to think: perhaps they weren’t meant to be realistic in the first place. Otherwise, they may actually be immensely realistic—just not in the way you expect them to be.

Old Vs. New: Carrie

Contrary to the popular belief that remakes can never surpass the original, the 2013 adaptation of Stephen King’s first novel Carrie is a huge improvement from the 1976 classic.

Carrie is the story of a 16-year-old telekinetic girl who was being bullied at school and sheltered by a fanatically religious mother. Carrie eventually gets pushed way too far at prom and unleashes her devastating power on everyone. Most people know the details by now; for those who don’t, that’s all I can tell you.

The 1976 movie adaptation is a classic for all the good reasons. It is chilling because it rings true to our fears when it comes to both conventional society and public relations. It highlights religion as a potential obstacle to progress; at least, that’s the interpretation most people get from it. True to its source material, Carrie is a compelling and effective cautionary tale about bullying.

The same is true for the 2013 remake, but it is neatly updated to its present-day setting and with additional depth to the story and its characters.

The horror is quite subdued. The heightened suspense and drama intensifies the thrilling climax that followed.

I think the movie doubles as a commentary on the present American society and its various ups and downs. Adults Are Useless but only because they're either just as clueless as the teenagers they handle or spread out too thin keeping things how they should be. I especially enjoyed this one: the tanned brunette Chris Hargensen is just as vicious as her pretty blonde counterpart in 1976, but she is also, quite plainly, just a spoiled brat.

The special effects achieved where the "original" didn't. In 1976, movie trends and conventions were obviously limited and some of those which were used came out silly (the music and Psycho Strings, for example). This remake had the perfect tools to intensify the horror of the story throughout the movie. The camera angles and additional scenes give the movie the right tone and atmosphere and, surprisingly, humanizes almost ALL characters.

If it counts, the new Carrie is a marvelous example of Characterization Marches On. In this adaptation, nobody is completely good or evil even though Carrie and Sue are obviously the most sympathetic ones. It feels a lot like Mean Girls where Regina George is the way she is because she has lousy parents. The school bullies are self-centered kids; the gym teacher is a well-meaning but misguided counselor; and Sue Snell and Tommy Ross are pretty much Average Joes that just want to do the right thing for once.

Julianne Moore's performance can remind you of Sigourney Weaver as Lady Claudia in Snow White: A Tale of Terror. She was frightening, menacing, and sympathetic, all at the same time. Julianne Moore, unsurprisingly, exceeds expectations in her performance as Margaret White. The script, thankfully, gives the character depth. Her moral dimensions are badly warped, but she does love Carrie, somewhat. Chloë Grace Moretz also delivered excellently as the title character. Both actresses handled the dynamic as the dysfunctional religious family in the suburbs in Maine.

Oh yeah, there are nice touches of realism in the script, too. Mrs. White has a job; she's not entirely a Complete Monster; and she and Carrie actually genuinely love each other. They just have really serious problems especially because Mrs. White's morality and reality are badly warped. It's an improvement; the 1976 adaptation was more faithful to the book in that aspect, but this new addition gives it a refreshing touch and therefore a more horrific and heartbreaking dynamic between the two characters.

The prom scene and the preceding telekinesis clips are impressive. We see an immensely satisfying destruction to the school gym and everyone who hurt Carrie there. I felt exactly the way I did when I first read the book when I was 13.

The Hunger Games review

As promised, I read The Hunger Games. I finished the first book a few days ago, and I am now quickly approaching the middle of the second. As you know from my previous post, I enjoyed its movie adaptation less than I expected. I thought it was less than all the hype promised, but it was nonetheless enjoyable. I think The Hunger Games is nowhere near as good as Harry Potter, but it certainly has its merits.

Unlike the futuristic concepts of decades ago, The Hunger Games depicts a future that is not far from our present. In what was once known as North America, there is a small nation called Panem. Panem is governed by the Capitol, surrounded by twelve districts, each serving the Capitol with its specialties in trade and commerce. However, the Capitol also happens to be a corrupt government that subjects the twelve districts to the annual Hunger Games, a gladiatorial tournament that gathers a boy and a girl, ages twelve to eighteen, from every district to fight to the death.

On the 74^th Hunger Games, a sixteen-year-old girl from District 12 named Katniss Everdeen volunteers to enter the Games, taking the place of her twelve-year-old sister Primrose “Prim” Everdeen, whose name was drawn.

The good …

Like Doug Walker, also known as the Nostalgia Critic, I appreciate that this post-apocalyptic allegory of contemporary pop culture acknowledges that its very young target audience can handle the intensity of its contents. I think the concept is tight and clever, and it is cleverly done. This reimagined future of civilization is haunting and manages to be believable.

I like that the narrative is fast-paced. The deceptively thick book can be finished in two to three weeks—one if you have enough spare time. The way the plot escalates is another factor; no matter what you like or dislike about the book, you will want to keep reading. This was true for me even if I’ve seen the movie before reading the book; besides, I wanted to know if there was anything I missed.

Well, I did miss one thing, and it was actually one of the cleverest parts of the movie: the supposed love triangle. Because we can’t have the movie adaptation told exactly as it was shown in the book, so in the movie, it kinda fell flat. Although Haymitch and Effie in the movie encouraged Katniss to keep up with Peeta’s declaration of love on national television, there was nothing in the dialogue that suggested it was all for show. I actually believed that Peeta really was in love with Katniss while Katniss is confused by her own hormones and decided to play with the boy. The movie handled it poorly, and I shall get to that later. The book, on the other hand, handled it much better.

While Katniss is set on not marrying and having children because she doesn’t want to put her future children into the Hunger Games, she clearly has feelings for her best friend Gale. She claims he is the only one she is fully comfortable with, the only one she readily smiles for—more on that later. Anyway, so Katniss has sworn to stay single, which is not to say she openly rejects romance or the possibility of it. She would be happy to look forward to a future with Gale if it weren’t for the Hunger Games, and Gale feels the same. Peeta comes into the picture, claiming on national television that he has a crush on Katniss. The media presents this as reality TV drama.

In the movie, this was played out way too subtly for me. Without the luxury of having Katniss’ thoughts to guide the audience, we had no way of knowing that it was almost entirely a ploy of Peeta and Haymitch to help Peeta and Katniss win. While this was explored in the movie, when Haymitch explained that appealing to melodrama and sympathy is a great way to get in the good graces of the sponsors of the Hunger Games, the narrative of the movie makes it clear that Peeta’s feelings were real, and Katniss developed her own feelings for him later. In the book, this was not the case at all. Whether Peeta’s feelings for Katniss were real is left ambiguous, while Katniss is outright pretending and doing a believable job at it for the cameras. The challenge is that she will have to keep pretending, and this draws Gale away from her. I am impressed with how this was played out in the books, so I got ticked off that many fans act like this was a love triangle at par with Twilight. It is not. This is much, much better than any standard love triangle. I like how complex and refreshing it is.

To my surprise, I actually became fond of Peeta. It is true that they say that he and Katniss complement each other. He is good at the things she’s not good at; and she is good at the things he’s not good at. He is not a good combatant, but he has remarkable showmanship while Katniss can put up a fight though putting on a show takes great effort from her. I like this setup even though it is still clear that Peeta is created the way he is to make Katniss seem strong and independent by comparison.

The bad …

The Hunger Games is told entirely in Katniss’s first person point of view, in an attempt to display the horrors of the Hunger Games from the eyes of its doomed participant. The Hunger Games is a dehumanizing so-called tradition of a so-called society, not unlike how present-day reality shows allow their so-called stars to lose their dignity in exchange for money while the viewers end up taking these shows too seriously. Knowing this, it probably doesn’t matter what the background the protagonist comes from. I don’t think it matters what the protagonist thinks of the games. The constant is that it is an unnecessary sacrifice to make, especially for an already-crumbling nation. Yet “acclaimed” author Suzanne Collins feels the need to shove a sob story in there.

Now, Katniss has had a hard life. Apparently, District 12 is the poorest district, where people regularly die of starvation. Katniss had to singlehandedly keep her family from meeting that fate by hunting in the woods with her best friend Gale. Katniss’s father died when she was 11 years old, and her mother went catatonic, neglecting her two young daughters for several months on end, essentially leaving them to fend for themselves. Katniss has hated her ever since. I don’t see any purpose in this except for the reader to take pity on Katniss. I think this is unnecessary because being drawn into the Hunger Games at all is a horrific tragedy in itself. I have an impression that this also gives the character an excuse to justify complaining about her lot in life in every opportunity.

As you would read from my review of the movie adaptation, I was repelled by the incredibly grumpy protagonist. I had been hoping I would like Katniss better if I read the books; to my disappointment, she was even worse there. Don’t get me wrong; I understand where she’s coming from. Most readers recognize her poor behavior as symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. From her background, it’s actually not very surprising. But I think this could have been handled better.

One of the greatest things that bother me about Katniss’s troubles is her relationship with her mother. Katniss “cannot forgive” her mother for neglecting her and her sister Primrose following the death of her husband in a mine accident. I suppose it would be reasonable to be resentful because, after all, it is a mother’s duty to care for her children regardless of her own troubles. But this is no excuse for Katniss to fault her mother for it by giving backhanded insults at dinner, distancing herself from her unless being otherwise hostile, and yelling at her just before Katniss goes off to the Hunger Games. Katniss may be hard-worn from the constant threat of starvation, but I find it hard to believe that she has so little emotional capacity to understand what her mother was going through and reach out to her instead. Katniss missed her dear father as much as her mother missed her husband. Even if they missed the same person in very different ways, I think Katniss should have had the capacity to think, “Hey, my mother is so lonely, and I’m lonely, too. Maybe if we mourn together, we won’t feel as bad.”

Obviously, she doesn’t have the capacity. Maybe it’s the malnutrition reducing her cognitive skills, but I digress. What bothers me about this is that in no way that this behavior is presented as wrong. Just because Katniss is the protagonist, everything she does is somehow justifiable. If she’s angry, she can rile against her mother all she wants. Nobody calls Katniss out for it—not even Primrose, who actually gets along with her mother.

The ugly …

I probably wouldn’t mind Katniss pointing out how horrible her life is, but her language is always so full of hate and contempt and general unhappiness that it exhausts me rather than drawing any genuine sympathy from me. We constantly get reminded how her life is a constant struggle and how sorry she feels for herself having to be the only one to feed her family and being angry with her mother for doing nothing. “I can never forgive her,” she says several times throughout the book, especially in the first act. She has been worn to the point of being emotionless. Yes, we can tell when she is being angry or sad, but we almost never witness her feeling anything else. She says she loves her sister, but she had to say it rather than demonstrate it besides the motherly way she cheers Prim up. We see how affected Katniss is whenever she is with Rue, but there were way too little demonstration of this affection.

Even smiling alone takes tremendous effort from Katniss, and when she does it with genuine love as she shows hers to Gale, it was told in a way that doesn’t come naturally for her. Some people don't smile because they are too depressed to smile with genuine happiness. While this is clear in Katniss's case, I got really annoyed that she says it like she has to remind herself to smile when around Gale, and not because she just smiles because it's him. None of this comes off as natural or believable. Yes, I remember being this depressed when I was also sixteen; smiling really does take tremendous effort, and my portraits from that time were terrible. But keep in mind that stoic people, recognizable as people who almost never smile, never smile because they don't feel like it, not because they consciously choose to frown all the time.

This would not have been annoying at all if it weren’t for Katniss constantly reminding the reader that being stoic is a conscious effort. When she becomes aware that she is in the public eye, she reminds herself to keep a straight face, apparently to hide any hint of fear or sorrow. I honestly do not see any logical purpose to this. I think that if she acts like herself, things might actually be better for her. We see glimpses of a lighter and bubblier Katniss when she is with Gale, in the Hunger Games’ opening parade, and during interviews with Caesar Flickerman. Katniss might argue that this is not her true self, but I would disagree. Whenever she lets down her defenses, I find she can be quite charming. I like her better when she is relaxed and comfortable. I even like her better when she is panicking over the prospect of getting killed because it shows she is human. I don’t see why or how being her charming self might impede on being the street-smart and self-sufficient girl that she is. If anything else, consciously being stoic makes her come off robotic and not at all likeable to anybody. This makes me question why Cinna is so fond of her.

What bothers me most of all is that the narrator’s language clearly demonstrates how little the author knows about the third world. District 12 is a third-world region. Poverty and hunger prevails, and people are compelled to seek illegal means to survive. There are clear distinctions between classes, and there are known clashes and discriminations between them. This is actually an accurate depiction of the third world; what is actually wrong is the disposition of a person living in it.

In December last year, Gallup listed the happiest and saddest countries in the world. The ten happiest countries included eight Latin American countries and two Asian countries. As many people know, Latin American countries tend to be impoverished due to corruption in the government and the disorganized transition from simple rural life to fast-paced urban living. This is also a serious problem in the Philippines, actually number 8 in the list of happiest people in the world. Coming from the Philippines, here is what I gather and which also Suzanne Collins completely fails to understand: even with every reason to complain, poor people choose not to.

Here in the Philippines, people have been photographed grinning ear-to-ear while wading in waist-deep floodwaters. Recently, a young couple was photographed on their wedding day waist-deep in the flood. We are always reluctant to spend money on luxuries like some gadgets and travel expenses; even those who can afford it would be happy to spend the next year or so saving; but even then, we never fail to have a good time with friends, or at least have a good laugh, especially snarky jokes against the government. I don’t know how it is in Latin America, but I am guessing it is similar, considering we are all former Spanish colonies: as my History teacher said once upon a time, the secret to our happiness is “prayer and laughter.”

People who are well off may see some poor people looking contented with their lives and think that poor people do not know better. Well, I think they do know better: Poor people have every reason to complain, but they realize it is a waste of time and energy to moan and groan about things they know they can’t have. Poor people try to find ways to find beauty and happiness around them because there is nothing to gain to keep yearning for things they can want but will cost them too much. Staying positive is the only way to survive. As Helen Morgendorffer of Daria put it, “It never is under control. We just tell ourselves otherwise so we can function.” Poor people are satisfied that they manage to get by, day by day. They might want to be rich, so they can afford to be fresh and clean and beautiful and financially successful, and even famous, but they are grounded enough to realize how little they can gain from dwelling on their wants than anything they already have.

This is exactly what Suzanne Collins doesn’t understand about living in the third world. Yes, I suppose any such optimism can automatically be brought down several notches when there is a clear threat to your life, but considering that Katniss points out that the Peacekeepers in District 12 mostly leave the people alone, Katniss would probably not dwell on her troubles that much.

Perhaps the poorest demonstration of this is when Katniss scoffs at Rue’s love for music. She describes music as “as useful as ribbons and rainbows,” meaning to say that she finds no real purpose for these things at all; ergo, she has absolutely no appreciation for either music or rainbows. It distinctively reminded me of Bella Swan saying, “Ew, snow,” when taking a walk with her ‘friends’ in the first Twilight book. I really felt like tearing the book apart when I read this line. It made me very angry because I don’t understand how anybody would not like music or rainbows. It’s just not believable; it’s not natural; it’s not human. And Katniss being like this destroys the purpose of her being the instrument of giving insight to how horrible the Hunger Games is.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/159254/latin-americans-positive-world.aspx

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.

Demonym Abuse, and the Difference Between Pride and Egotism; or, the Sad Case of Jessica Sanchez

As of yesterday morning, Phillip Phillips was announced as the eleventh American Idol, the same title bestowed upon KellyClarkson, Fantasia Barrino, Jordin Sparks, and David Cook, to name a few. The opponent he apparently defeated is Jessica Sanchez, who is of Filipino and Mexican descent. The “white guy with a guitar” won over the little brown girl with the big voice, and I am somehow glad.

Don’t get me wrong: I wanted Jessica to win. In fact, as soon as I found out she is half-Filipino and has a legitimate talent in singing, I wanted her to win. Last night, as every Filipino hoped and prayed for her to win, I hoped it so, too. It’s just that the ridiculous news coverage really put me off. Once again, the overwhelming Pinoy Pride has taken control.

Before I get to that one vital topic, let me just discuss one more, seemingly unimportant problem that is actually bigger than what the ignorant populace of this wretched archipelago might not realize: Philippine journalism is run with people who shouldn’t even be in that field. Being a journalism means you have to tell the truth, but how can you tell the truth if you can’t even use words properly? Words are like crystal goblets containing valuable wine while being valuable on their own; they’re not sacks of sand you just throw around and pretend it wouldn’t matter.

I am, of course, talking about how local journalists, namely the anchors of TV Patrol, consistently referring to Jessica Sanchez as a “Filipino-Mexican.” It is understandable in that they are referring to her race, but you don’t describe race in common language like that. Most importantly, it distinctively sounds like they’re disregarding the fact that Jessica Sanchez is American. Yes, my little brown fellowmen, that gorgeous sixteen-year-old who looks exactly like us is American, and she is nothing less of an American than her white male opponent. Just because she is born of a Filipina mother and a Hispanic father (who is Hispanic White, by the way, and hails from Texas, which is populated by a large Mexican population) doesn’t make her any less of an American. Jessica was born in California, and her mother is probably an American citizen by now rather than a permanent resident (a.k.a. a green card holder).

Oh, the demonym abuse doesn’t end there, people. Korina Sanchez, at one point, asked a reporter collecting information all the way in Los Angeles, California, “Di kaya manalo itong si Phillip Phillips dahil purong Americano siya?” Purong Americano? Korina Sanchez, don’t you know such a phrase doesn’t exist and has no meaning? There is no such thing as a “pure” American especially when you are referring to a white person! If you call Phillip Phillips a pure American, what then would you call people like Taylor Lautner, or Chaske Spencer, or Julia Jones, or Gil Birmingham, or any of the other black-haired, copper-skinned actors playing the Quileute lupine shape-shifters in the Twilight movies? And for that matter, what then would you call people like Beyonce Knowles, or Will Smith, or Jennifer Hudson? And while we’re at it, do you think people like Jeremy Lin, or Daniel Dae Kim, or heck, Nicole Scherzinger are not American because they’re not white?

More importantly, why do you jump to the conclusion that Phillips' would win just because he's white? HOW UNBELIEVABLY RACIST CAN YOU GET? Okay, it's true that there remains public inclination toward white males, which is possibly the same reason most Hollywood movies have white male action heroes unless the lead is Will Smith. But people, have you forgotten that the first American Idol was Kelly Clarkson, who is a white female, and her successor was Ruben Studdard, who is a Black male? Or maybe you didn't care because there is suddenly "one of us" who have gotten so far in the competition. Phillips didn't win because he is white; he won simply because more people voted for him because his fanbase (composed of rock and pop rock music lovers) were simply heavier than Jessica's.

I know what you’re thinking: oh, they’re just making it easier for the less educated people to understand what they mean. No, using language this way is not doing any favors for the masses. This only makes them even more ignorant of the nuances of racial makeup in the United States population. Some white people in America might actually not be American, and many colored people born and raised in the United States are American, granted that their parents are citizens of the United States of America. Most of the Caucasian (white) population are actually descendants of European settlers, making them essentially, and technically, not just American by birth but American by virtue of being born from a long string of generations of Europeans (many ethnic groups of them, for that matter) also born and raised in the New World to escape oppression from Europe. Some white people in the US today are also of mixed race, meaning they may have at least one Jewish, Hispanic, or more commonly, a Native American ancestor. What does that make colored people labeled American? Well, some of them are Americans in the same manner. However, in the case of people like Jessica Sanchez—in fact, most Filipino Americans of her generation—at least one of their parents are immigrants from the Philippines. Jessica is American because she was born in America to American parents, regardless of race. American is not an ethnic group; it is a nationality. The word describes people born in America to American citizens; the word also applies for immigrants (regardless of race) who applied for American citizenship. Native Americans (sometimes named collectively along with Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians) are also Americans by virtue of being born and raised in United States territory to parents and ancestors who have been living there long, long before the white people ever knew they existed in the 1500s.

Now that that issue is out of the way, let me settle down the more important issue: the overblown obsession with Jessica Sanchez and the overwhelming desire of having her as the new American Idol. Again, let me reiterate: I share this desire because she is Filipino and is a good singer. Before you call me a hypocrite, let me explain one tidbit I mentioned in a previous blog entry: I understand that we Filipinos see anybody as a brother or sister as long as they can trace their lineage to our precious archipelago. I share this sentiment. Even now, I still wish Jessica won the competition because I also believe that it is a tremendous honor to have “one of us” to have the title.

However, I do not approve of peculiar claims I keep hearing both from these television journalists and the people they interview and encourage. Pop singer Gary Valenciano mentioned at one point that Jessica Sanchez “carries the banner of the Philippines.” Random interviewees and reporters have dramatically proclaimed that having Jessica Sanchez win American Idol would be the triumph of Filipinos in Hollywood.

As my iPod has been out of battery power while my right earphone is damaged, I could only cringe and squirm in my seat in the bus while I kept hearing those phrases and variations thereof over and over and over. It was torture. It was torture because these people are either misguided or totally ignorant. Either way, they don’t know what they’re talking about.

When has Jessica Sanchez ever cared about her Filipino heritage? For that matter, I have never heard any Filipino American bragging about it, not even my American cousin, who is delighted about visiting her parents’ home country but doesn’t really care about anything else about it. If you ask me, this is not a problem. I also think that if Jessica doesn’t care, neither should we. Nobody has to. While it is a big deal because if she had become the newest American Idol, that would make her the youngest and the first Filipino, and the first Asian, and the first Hispanic American Idol, Filipinos need to stop claiming that such an honor is shared with us.

This isn’t even just pride anymore; it’s egotism. This is not like a parent beaming over a child with accomplishment; this is like a chained dog cheering over a long and successful struggle of a wolf with a huge prey and then claiming that the success is his because a distant unknown ancestor was once a wolf. My little brown fellowmen, this competition, this triumph, is not about you; this is about her. This is about Jessica and her long and turbulent struggle to come this far in such a prestigious competition. If you wanted to support her, why don’t you just support her? Why didn’t you support Jessica because she is a talented singer and a sister for us? No, you did it because you feel the triumph can be our own. It isn’t. Jessica is not a symbol of our country; she is an incredibly talented individual who got where she is because of her skills and charisma. Most importantly, she is only Filipino because of half of her genetic makeup; as far as I can see it, she is 100% American.