Racism: some thoughts.

Hello all, a potentially controversial topic today, but I think that at heart I am a genuinely tolerant person - keep that in mind. I'm also smug.
 
I play 3-on-3 basketball for a team. There are four, sometimes five, of us tied into the team, and I am the only 'white' guy. A friend from the team is a very big, very black man who I won't name. For the record, he calls me whitey, and jokes about my cracker ass, inability to jump, and the fact that on a sunny day you can see my internal organs. Meanwhile I joke that he can't be seen in dark rooms and can't eat brownies because it would be cannibalism. It's classy stuff, but we're friends, and it's well-meaning. It's also not the only thing about each other that we mock, he mocks my pretention and laziness, I make fun of his addiction to videogames and sugar, as well as his height (6 foot 8!). To me, he's a friend first, a giant second, a black guy third.

We were out drinking and had a series of serious discussions. Eventually we breached the topic of race, and surprisingly, it led to quite an intelligent debate. We started off by mentioning that greek ahtlete who made a joke about the number of Africans on the Greek Olympic team. From what I understand, she said that with so many Africans there, the 'west nile' mosquitos would be having home-cooked food. West nile Virus is now common in Greece (apparently). She was sent home as a result of this joke. It's a terrible joke, not funny, but she didn't deserve to be sent home for that.  there are African people on the West Nile, why should an admittance of this be so controversial? Should we be sending athletes home for a bad-taste joke?

 I argue that it's controversial because any mention of black people is instantly regarded as 'racist.' This attitude, so commonly seen in twitter outrages, is racist in itself. Had she tweeted a joke about white people, or 'regular' Greeks, would it have caused a similar amount of fuss? No. This attitude is not only racist, but exteremly worrying, it is at very least, a sign of inequality. Surely 'regular' Greeks and 'African' Greeks have to be treated equally, and that should include being able to say a stupid joke about them without it necessarily being made into 'racism'. Surely for a multicultural society to thrive, there has to be some give or take? (I understand that West Nile Virus is dangerous, and deadly, and that may be part of the decision, but the race aspect was what we were discussing, so move on.)

This is a point that my friend made. Every once in a while, he says, someone (usually white) will jump into 'protect' him from harmless ribbing from a friend (see above for examples). He claims that this intervention is racism. I think he has a point. Although they are well-meaning, my friend argues, at the heart of the matter is the fact that these people think that black people are different and require protection from harmless abuse in a way that a 'whitey' wouldn't. Being mocked and joking with friends is something which everyone does. At heart is the thought that black people are so different that they can't handle gentle ribbing, and that they can't think of their own comebacks to get even. The end result is that people think that black people, in this case, my friend, needs special protection because he is different. That's racism, or at least unenlightened.

   He also notes that in cases where he was genuinely racially abused, these same people are to blame. He argues that British people tend to be inherently racist, I don't know about that, but the situation seems to be a lot more perillous than it should be. Britain has had generations to integrate, and it still seems fraught with tension. Certainly the situation is genereally perillous enough to prevent people from joking about the race of another, and that is a genuine obstacle to multiculturalism and tolerance.

  Please note that there is a huge difference between joking with your friends and genuine racist abuse. Either way, it's trouble, if you want equality, you have to treat everyone as equal, you must accept that every race is as flawed, as ugly, as pathetic as every other. You can't put some races on a pedestal in terms of protection, and you can't treate every comment as racist, as that is a racist attitude itself. As soon as we start segmenting certain people as 'off limits' for comedy, comments and even criticisims, then we are driving a barrier between us and a socially inclusive, cohesive country.

Other topics we discussed: why is it that lesbians are the only sexuality to constantly remind you of it? My friend thinks it's because a lot of them are fickle - His sister was an 'experimental' lesbian for a while, but is now engaged and pregnant - what we both agreed on is that we know lesbians who constantly mention their sexuality to everyone, and we both know different lesbians who have changed their names since coming out. Gays are proud, and remain proud, but I have never met one who has changed his name after coming out, and I used to live in Newtown, Australia. We both agreed that you get the feeling that lesbians need to keep doing this because they are either unsure of themselves, or thnk that everyone wants to hear. [N.B. I kind of agree with myself in the sober light of day, but I do need to write this a little better].

Hope everyone is well, thanks for reading.
 P

Addendum: as if to emphasise my point, a Swiss soccer player has been kicked out of his Olympics team for using twitter to calling the Korean opposition 'Mongoloids'. I think we can all agree that this is racial abuse. Why, oh why, do these idiots use twitter anyway? it's nothing but trouble.

King Kong: reviewed 70 years too late.

A great, spoiler-ific poster,  including a giant ape carrying a woman bigger than a plane [source]

A few thoughts today on the movie 'King Kong', in both its 1933 and 2005 guises. I was given / stole from a friend , a box set of King Kong movies. This included: two versions of the 1933 classic 'King Kong' (one is 'colorized'), as well as 'King Kong vs. Godzilla' and 'King Kong Escapes.' I watched the original King Kong movie the other day for the first time since I had chickenpox when I was aged 12 or 13. You know the story: director and crew go to island, capture a giant ape, who is or isn't in love with a woman. Ape is brought back to New york, where he kidnaps woman and climbs the empire state building before being shot down. It's a typical love story really. Incidentally, that should have been preceded with a spoiler warning. The 1933 version I watched is an extended version, which adds a few scenes cut for decency in the 1930s (Kong deliberately squashing a couple of people on his island, Kong dropping a woman to her death, Kong stripping Fay Wray and then sniffing his fingers (though in a non-lascivious manner).

This is the poster for 'King Kong Escapes,' which was made by a Japanese studio after they acquired the rights. This is what Japan gives you when you give it King Kong. [source]

  There have been remakes of the original: one in 1976 with Jeff Bridges, and the 2005 Peter Jackson version with Naomi Watts and Jack Black. The box set was released before the Peter Jackson remake was released, ostensibly to get people excited about a new, big-budget version of a classic. What actually happens is that you watch the original version, and then watch the 'bonus' trailer of the remake. If you're like me, you shrug your shoulders, remind yourself that you saw the 2005 version, and then move on to watch 'King Kong Escapes,' where Kong fights a giant robot version of himself. It's not even as good as you'd think. However, even that is still better than the remake, which I saw with extended family in the Christmas of 2005. Looking back on the trailer, you are just reminded what an unnecessary, overblown, unmemorable load of shit it was, especially as it cost an absolute fortune to make.

For example. [source]

For one, the original is an adventure movie. Jackson is consciously trying to 'better' it- bigger, stronger, more fights! more action! If the original King Kong fights a tyrannosaurus (and defeats it by breaking its jaw off),  Jackson's ape fights 3 t-rexs, and it just feels like overkill. Less is more if it's done well.. The original King Kong is a primal force of nature: he kills, he fights animals; the crew of sailors on the island are attacked by various creatures and die, and while all this is true of the remake, it feels more sanitised. This is probably because of the calming effect of CGI, which is so overused in the remake that it relegates everything into a special effect. This can be seen most clearly through the crew of sailors on the island, Jack Black running along like a dickhead while dinosaurs run on a greenscreen behind him. 

While on the island, Original Kong (Not a member of the Donkey Kong family) fights a couple of dinosaurs, and a pterodactyl. Meanwhile the men hunting him down goad a Brontosaurus into attacking them, and then for no reason kill a Stegosaurus. All of this is done through a clever use of animatronics, dolls, and other techniques of the time. Now it's cheesy and dated, but is still charming and still kind of scary at a primal level. This isn't the case with the 'photo-realistic' CGI of Jackson's nonsense. this was made in 2005 and already looks dated, and it certainly won't retain charm in 70 years time like the original. See here:

The last movie Jack Black was in as a serious character?

The monster itself is another point. The original King Kong is conveyed by a clever mix of giant puppets, animatronics, and some clever silhouetting. It isn't convincing in any way, but he is a powerful looking, primal beast. His fur twitches, because of the pressure from fingers used to move him between shots, resulting in a ripple as scenes go on. However, this luckily for the film-makers hints at muscle working under his fur, and, when he is stranded at the top of the Empire State Building, of wind. He is a well characterised giant gorilla. He doesn't stand up to today's realism, but he is certainly more charming than the CGI abomination that Jackson unleashed. The original King Kong is still enjoyable in 2012, it was made in 1933. Meanwhile I saw the remake only 7 years ago and had to be reminded by the trailer that Adrien Brody and Jamie Bell were in it, or that they had used pterodactyls as hang-gliders to escape from Kong's lair. Weak. 

Speaking of which, Jack Black is in it, the character of Denholm, the movie director. He impersonates Orson Welles and runs around for 3 hours (!). In the original, the character of Denholm, who is the mastermind of the Kong capture, and a director, continually rams home the notion that 'beauty' (Fay Wray) and 'Beast' (King Kong) are diametrically opposed. He mentions it on the boat, on the island, emphasises it to the press before Kong escapes. Finally, when he sees Kong's body, riddled with bullets, and having fallen 450 meters to the road, he ignores that and utters the immortal line 'it was beauty killed this beast.' He's wrong. but mankind did conquer nature. The theme of 'Beauty vs. Beast' is repeatedly mentioned in the original, and the finale suggests that beauty wins in the end, however, I think that had gunpowder and civilisation not been involved, Kong would have just humped and then eaten our screaming heroine.

A still from the original, as two giants fight to the death, and Fay Wray watches from a tree (top-left)

 Still, although the original is a classic, and a landmark in special effects, it's not without its flaws. The three main human characters, Fay Wray as actress Ann Darrow; a 1930s movie director called Denholm; and a handsome but charmless sailor: they aren't really up to much. It also takes a surprising amount of time before the monster appears, they're on the boat for what feels like an age for no real reason. Other than the special effects, which retain a primal power and charm, there are other bits that haven't aged quite so well: the casual sexism towards Fay Wray (who is still objectively attractive today); the needless killing of dinosaurs (they go out of their way to goad a brontosaurus when they are on a raft, when quietly going by it would have been easier) and, after killing a Stegosaurus with several point blank shots to the head, Denholm says 'that would be worth a bundle alive.'

Also, the 'native' tribe who live on Skull island aren't painted in a very good way. I say 'painted' as a metaphor for how they are depicted, though I can't rule out that they've not been black-faced. They're depicted as savage kidnappers willing to trade in women. It's also hard not to squirm at a bunch of grinning idiots who carry fire, throw spears and wear coconut bras. The wall which separates them from Kong's part of the island, we are told, was built when they had civilisation (but they've forgotten it) and a rifle shot is enough to send them scampering to their huts. Denholm says that 'gunpowder's not quite made its way here yet.' Essentially, they're primitive, spear-chucking buffoons: it's not exactly enlightened. Still, that's what you get when you make a movie in 1933, so perhaps I should just shut up? Also, the natives aren't exactly painted in a positive light in the remake, they're basically orks by other names, living in mud shacks, and with sharpened teeth. 

More realistic and expensive, but where's the charm? [source]

In terms of the characterisation of the Kong himself, the original also wins hands-down. He's an ape: violent and deadly, a primal force of nature and large enough to terrify and cause extreme damage. He kicks ass and doesn't care who knows it. He particularly hates train lines, which he goes out of his way to smash up when he is unleashed in the city. Fay Wray's character is at no point happy to see him, and spends all the time in his company screaming, or having fainted. However, you almost feel sorry for him. He was on an island, fighting dinosaurs, offered the odd woman by the villagers, before he is given Fay Wray, and before he can even investigate her, is gassed, tied up, shown to a fickle public and photographed. We are also told that they have 'beaten the spirit out of him' (a scene I would liked to have seen added, what weapons did they use?!). At the films conclusion, the most elemental force in nature is killed, far from his home where he is feared and worshipped, and murdered by human technology. 

Jackson's version, on the other hand, is less a killing machine, and places emphasis on the relationship between Naomi Watts and King Kong, almost making it a inter-species love story. Yes, Jackson's gorilla is fierce, and nuanced, and probably closer reflects the complicated behaviour of a genuine gorilla, but watch him slipping around on the ice, or happily watching Naomi Watts do backflips, and you'll want to kill yourself. Naomi Watts' character is also to blame, laughing and encouraging him, it's supposed to be a horror movie (of sorts) not a freakin' misunderstanding romance. 

Male interpretation: Silhouette use to show a giant ape climb a tower. Feminist interpretation: primitive creature taking innocent woman up phallic symbol before the ultimate sacrifice.

 The original is flawed, poorly acted, and the animatronics rely more on charm than on reality. Kong changes shape and size depending where he is, and it's also racist and sexist by today's standard (I didn't even mention the Chinese cook aboard the ship). Despite all this it's charming and pushed the special effects of the time to their limit. Plus, it has the good grace to be finished in an hour and a half, less than half of the remakes run time. That's why we refer to the original as a classic in cinema, and possibly as a precursor to every monster movie ever made. Meanwhile people now use the remake, 'The Lonely Bones,' and the end of 'Return of the King' to show that Jackson isn't a fan of succinct story telling.

5 Worst World Foods

I've eaten some shitty foods in my time. For the record, I live in the UK, which is famous for shitty food, but seems to have lifted its game a bunch in recent years. Anyone who says differently, try an Arbroath Smokey Pancake, and then shut up. The following are the worst foods I've eaten. I am well aware that eating in a couple of restaurants doesn't give a good indication of a culture, but what do you want me to do about it? These are, if not the worst, then the most disappointing, world cuisines I've tried:

5. Finnish

There was a Finnish restaurant in Sydney. It sold nothing but miserable dumplings and stew with gelatine in it. Why would you open a finnish restaurant if you a) can't cook, and b) even if you could, the food is plainly unsuited to a warm climate.

4. Korean

Cantonese food: good. Taiwanese food: good. Japanese food: Good. All around them they have good food (well, except for North Korea, which seems to have chosen missiles and malnutrition over anything else) so why is Korean food so bad? That scene in Oldboy where he eats a live octopus seems like a good choice over eating Congee and badly made bulgogi. I keep thinking that I must be ordering the wrong stuff, but I think it's just not a great world cuisine. Not awful, just disappointing, every single time I fall for it. [Note - the day after I write this, I went to a GREAT Korean restaurant, called Shilla in Edinburgh, and it was delicious - this renders the rest of the list useless].

3. Hungarian

Hungarians seem to absolutely not care about food, which is almost unique to Europe. The markets we went to there were completely uninspired, mouldy food being sold by people who didn't care. Desperate for fruit, I scoured high and low, only to find a tower of peaches, two metres high, all of which were mouldy. It was such a huge change from other markets I've seen, for example, in Split, Croatia, or anywhere in Italy, where fresh food and fun was to be had. The restaurants in Hungary were poor, the only exceptions being for food of other cultures. For example, Hungarian Chinese restaurant was surprisingly good, at least by comparison. Weird food, badly prepared, and expensive. A surprise entry.

2. Indonesian

 Indonesia is the 4th largest country in the world. I speak nearly fluent Indonesian because Australian Schools put a great emphasis on it (whereas I know almost no science or maths, and I karnt spell gud either). Meanwhile, this 250million people country is NEVER mentioned in European press apart from describing briefly the latest disaster occurring there. Certainly, for a country that size, it has made no contribution to world cuisine outside of nasi goreng and sambal olek. Every Indonesian restaurant I've been to has been disappointing, every time. I feel like good Indonesian food is out there, I just don't know how or where to get it. I'm not alone in that feeling either.

1. Chinese (Mainland)

 I am not squeamish. I've eaten scorpions, horse sashimi, anteater, snake and other things which most people wouldn't bother with. So it's not the fact that I don't like how chinese people treat animals (although I don't like that) - the problem is that Mandarin food seems to apply to a completely different pallet to my own. I wouldn't mind eating frog overies in batter, if it tasted nice. I would happily wolf down a 'king mushroom' a mushroom the size of a dinner plate but with the texture and flavour of a blood bogie, if it tasted nice. I suppose I would endorse shark fin soup if they actually ate the rest of the shark to go with it, and the soup wasn't just gelatinous shit. As it is, I just don't get it.

An Update

I'm heading oversaeas for benevolent reasons. I won't have the internet much, so will mainly spend a bit of time editing articles here (a lot weren't proofread at all), and hopefully occassional updates when I'm settled in. Also, I was getting a bit sick of creepy internet searches such as 'lemur zoophilia' and 'pippa middleton feet naked' showing up, day after day. I also appreciate the contact I've had, and am making an effort to get back to you, but again was sick of being called names by illiterates. For that reason also, I'll take some time off this. If you want to see a list of all articles I've done, please click here. If you've enjoyed reading this, let me know, and if you haven't, you will anyway.

Also, I had a discussion last night with a girl I had met about Chris Brown,that singer who is number 1 in the British album charts. I don't know why we were talking about it, it was probably on in the background. I don't like that kind of music (Shitty R&B), but she was defending him not only as a great artist (he's not), but as a great person (he's not). He's the guy who beat up Rihanna.

 I don't like Rihanna's music either, it's at best bland, boring pop designed by committee and forcefed to idiots, at worst it's ubiquitous shit (that song 'you make me feel like I'm the only girl in the world' was on in every shop, store, cafe, bar and club in the world for about 2 months, and was dreadful). I've also heard her interviewed, and she seems to be a wilfully stupid person, she made the T4 presenters who interviewed her look intelligent. However, she took a hell of a beating by this Chris Brown fella, and you can access the warrant for his arrest here, it's pretty gruesome. Before this, Brown was known as a wholesome teen-heart-throb type guy, and strangely, his vicious attack on a pretty idiot has allowed him to cultivate a 'domestic abusing gangsta' personality which has given him number 1 in the British charts. My advice, don't buy this shit, it's awful and made by awful people. Come on everyone, we should be doing better.

Anyway, thanks for reading, hopefully hear from you all soon,
Pascal.