Thor: God of Thunder, White, Australian!

There is a group out there who are somewhat unthrilled with the casting choices made in the upcoming Thor movie. Oddly enough they are not perturbed by an Australian Thor of a British Odin. No their argument is against a black man playing the uber-popular Norse god who is everyone's favorite and is the REAL star of the show: Heimdall! Wait... Who?

For those of you who are unaware of who this god, don't feel too bad. Despite his important roll in Ragnarok, he is not a well-known god. Heimdall is the guardian of the bifrost bridge, the rainbow bridge that connects Midgard (Earth) to Asgard (Asgard). He will be the one to sound the horn signaling the beginning of Ragnarok making him possibly one of the worst early warning systems in history. He is also of note due to his being the last god to die during Ragnarok as he and Loki kill each other. Damn, I probably should have put a "spoiler" warning there, huh? I hope I didn't ruin the end of the world for you there.

Now you know...

So anyway this group, The Council of Conservative Citizens, is all upset that a black actor,Idris Elba, will be playing the roll of everyone's favorite god, Heimdall. Thier position being that since the character is a Norse god, he should be played by a white man presumably to ensure the integrity of the part. They see the casting of a black man, British no less, as some sort of assault on conservative values and white people in general.

In their own words:

Marvel Studios declares war on Norse mythology.

"Norse mythology gets a multi-cultural remake in the upcoming movie titled “Thor,” by Marvel studios. It’s not enough that Marvel attacks conservative values and promotes the left-wing, now mythological Gods must be re-invented with black skin.

It seems that Marvel Studios believes that white people should have nothing that is unique to themselves. An upcoming movie, based on the comic book Thor, will give Norse mythology an insulting multi-cultural make-over. One of the Gods will be played by Hip Hop DJ Idris Elba."

Oooookay. Really, guys? War? Last time I checked "war" was a huge, horrible, bloody affair where many people were killed. It always irritates me how our culture throws around that term. War on crime, war on drugs, war on poverty and don't even get me started on the war on terror. The word has less and less impact every time we misuse it. The only way this casting could possibly be considered an act of war would be if they loaded Elba into a cannon and fired him into a large group of people. Although, I have to admit, if they actually did, I would be one of the sick bastards who would have to watch that... repeatedly.

They are upset that, even though all the Nordic gods where white, they cast a black man. Ok, they have a point. The Nordic gods were, in fact, white, just are the gods from African mythology were black. Both of these facts are due to the color of the people who utilized the mythology.

So, it seems that they want historical accuracy. Ok, fine, lets shoot for accuracy shall we? Seeing as how the gods were Nordic, they probably shouldn't be speaking English either, huh? So, now we have white folks speaking in Nordic languages. We should be completely accurate then, right? Wrong! Let us not forget that the Nordic gods were, um, ya know, gods! That right there rules out any chance of hiring human actors. So the question is: Did Marvel even offer any parts to deities? The answer to that my friends is a resounding "NO"! For shame, Marvel, for shame. Did you even try? Although I do understand that there would be problems with casting deities. Would Yahweh be available for a long shooting schedule? Does Apollo really need two trailers? Will Vishnu work for scale? Even if that was viable, wouldn't it piss off the actual Nordic gods?

The CCC seems to regard this casting as Marvel's attempt at social engineering. Again, my response would be "huh?" While I firmly believe that movies and other fiction can play a part in shaping the landscape of the social world, they, for the most part, follow the landscape that is already there. At least that is the case with most mainstream fiction. As much as it pains me to say it, Marvel just isn't that powerful.

As a conservative group, you would think that they would be more upset when Marvel had one of it's most popular characters, Spider-Man, make a deal with the devil, or Marvel's devil-like character. I found this move by Marvel thoroughly offensive, not because it was blasphemous or anything like that but more due to the fact that it was stupid and poor storytelling.

You would think that a group like this would want to focus more on actual racism against white folks than waste their time on (forgive me Marvel) fluff. Is their racism against white people? Of course there is. Everyone on the planet of any race, assuming they have ever been in a mixed group of more than six people, has experienced racism.

Will this movie be awesome? I hope so. Will it be the thing that triggers a global genocide in which all members of our species with a relatively low amount of melanin in their skin, will be dragged from there homes. put up against walls and shot? Probably not.

Finally, I have to admit that I find it hilarious that Heimdell is refereed to in mythology as the "White God".


Rant Over... For Now

Note: I would like to thank The website toplessrobot.com for making me aware of this story through no fault of their own. Thanks again, Guys.

Well, Of Course, That Makes Perfect Sense... Oh, Wait

I was walking through a parking lot the other day when I passed a car with a bumper sticker on it. It was a white back ground with bright red letters on it which said: "PRO-LIFE, God's only choice!" I had to back up and make sure I read that correctly. Sadly, I did.

"PRO-LIFE: God's only choice" Now, maybe it's just me, but I fail to see the logic in this statement. If this statement were true and god's only choice was pro-life, one has to wonder: Why does he keep killing everything? Everything that has ever been alive dies, every thing that is alive will die. Flora and fauna both, everything eventually shuffles off this mortal coil. So where does the pro-life bit come in?

Now some might say: "Well, that sticker only refers to the abortion issue. God want's unborn babies to live."

Again the question is: why does he keep killing them? That's right friends and neighbors, god kills babies too! Still-birth anyone? How about S.I.D.S.? What about the myriad other things that kill babies everyday? Everything from car accidents to infanticide, babies die just like the rest of us. Now you might say that the sticker was only referring to unborn babies. Okay, fine, explain miscarriages to me.

Some might answer that things like that are simply "God's will" and he works in mysterious ways that we can't possible understand. Well, that is a wee bit convenient isn't it? Although, it does prove my point. If all those things are "God's will" then it seems that god's will is to kill babies. If you want to go with the idea that god works in mysterious ways that we can't possibly understand, isn't it possible that god is working through the doctors that perform these abortions? After all, if you believe the statement printed on the bumper sticker, chances are you also believe that god created the doctors as well. Couldn't god be working the plan through these doctors that he created?

"God doesn't work that way." these people usually say. Wait, didn't you just say that human's couldn't possibly understand? If you claim to know absolutely what god would or would not do, aren't you claiming to know the mind of god and thereby, his divine plan? I thought we were incapable of doing that.

As George Carlin pointed out, these people who are pro-life would think nothing of getting chemo therapy if they one day developed cancer. Tumors, strictly speaking, are alive. There is the argument that the tumor is a part of the body and the body survives so it is not really killing. Okay, how about bugs? Ever kill one of those? Ever cut down a tree? Eat a steak? Write on paper using a pencil? All these things involve the killing of life in one form or another.

Isn't it lovely how we get to pick and choose what is and isn't immoral depending on what's convenient for us?


Rant Over....for now

Sherman, set the WABAC Machine to December 27, 2008!

Looking back through my posts I came across one from deep in the mists of time. It was one regarding the concept of reparations for the descendants of former slaves. Here is the original post:

http://whiskeytangofoxtrotblues.blogspot.com/2008/12/all-former-slaves-raise-your-hand.html

A comment was left by a gentleman named James and I felt that it deserved a response, albeit an extraordinarily belated one. Here is James' comment followed by my response:

"(a quote from the original post) Show me, in a calm, logical manner how the argument for reparations is sound."

How's this:

The descendants of American slaves are, today, substantially disadvantaged--in both tangible and intangible ways--because of the legacy of slavery.

Meanwhile, all Americans today enjoy substantial benefits from our history of slavery.

Ergo, reparations for slavery, in the sense of trying to address this manifest injustice, make good sense.

I've tried to make very simple, but entirely true, statements here. I can certainly elaborate if you question any of the facts I've referred to.

I'm not an advocate of reparations, at least in the crude form of cash payments to the descendants of slaves. I do think, though, that there's a strong argument here for addressing the legacy of slavery.

"(a quote from the original post)there is a big difference between the two. Namely, some of the victims of the Japanese internment camps were still alive when the payout was made!"

Some of the victims were still alive, but that's not a big difference between the two cases.

Why? Because payments were also made to the descendants of these victims, in cases where the victims themselves were already dead. So that's a strong precedent in favor of slavery reparations, or at least for not rejecting them on the grounds that the original victims are dead.

"(a quote from the original post)we, logically, must accept the flip side of that argument: If someone in someone's family tree was a criminal, then they should be punished for their crime."

Except that slavery reparations aren't punishment. We all agree, presumably, that punishing people for the crimes of others is morally wrong.

However, compensating people for what was done to their ancestors is a principle that's widely accepted. Your post cites the example of reparations to the descendants of U.S. WWII concentration camps. And I think the general principle is accepted by many people: that if something is taken wrongly from one family, those who inherit the ill-gotten gains may need to return them to the family that should have them.



And now, my response:

First of all, let me apologize for responding to this comment a few years late. Second I would like to thank you for your comment, James. I think I grasp what you are saying but I must respectfully disagree.

First I must disagree that in this day and age the descendants of former slaves are substantially disadvantaged. There are many laws in place to make sure that discrimination does not occur. Are these laws and the system that enforce them perfect? Of course not, but the discrimination sword cuts both ways. At some point in most people's lives, they have been discriminated against no matter what their color or ethnicity.

You say that Americans today enjoy the benefits from our history of slavery. Okay, I can accept that. But don't the people that would receive reparations enjoy the same benefits? Are they not Americans as well?

You make the point that payments were made to the families of the victims of the internment camps. I admit that was a gaff on my part.
However, I believe that the point still stands. Only those who suffered incarceration should have received the payments. As far as sighting this as a precedent for reparations keep in mind that if you look hard enough and broaden your search, you will find a precedent for almost everything. Keep in mind though, a precedent does not make something right. For instance, there is a precedent for slavery itself, does that mean slavery was the right thing to do? Let's look at little more recent history. There is a precedent for imprisoning people indefinitely with out charging them with a crime and denying them representation. Does that make it the right thing to do? I would argue that it does not.

I must respectfully disagree with you on the notion that reparation payments are not a punishment. I believe they are. If a crime was committed against me by someone else I can take them to civil court and be awarded punitive damages as a means of punishing the guilty party. Punitive damaged are awarded above and beyond the actual damages I suffered. I believe the same thing would apply to reparations. Individuals who incurred no damages, I.E. were never slaves, would be awarded a payment over and above the actual damages that they actually incurred, I.E. none. Sighting discrimination as a direct result of slavery, i believe is a false argument. In order to prove that slavery is the sole cause of discrimination. I don't believe that is the case. If it were, no one but the descendants of former slaves would ever experience discrimination. That is clearly not the case.

I feel that the argument that they descendants of slavery were harmed by it is a false one. The sad fact it that it is human nature for any group to elevate itself by belittling and, indeed, persecuting another another. We see it again and again throughout history. The obvious, and one of the most extreme cases of this to occur during the last century, was the Nazi's treatment of Jews, homosexual and gypsies during the second World War. This is just one extreme example, there are many many others. The marginalization of the Irish, Italian, Jews and, yes, Black people in this country. It even extends down to one baseball team belittling another. The only difference is one of degree.

I am descended from those who were kept in ghettos and were ultimately imprisoned and murdered. Am I suffering due to the wrong done to my ancestors? I would argue that I am not, and that occurred during the last century. Does that wrong affect me today? Of course it does. Would I say that I am a victim of the atrocities committed against my ancestors? Of course not.

I realize that this was not the point that you were trying to make but I must say that, in my opinion, counting myself as a victim would belittle what they went through. As I say, I realize that was not your intent, it is just my opinion, no more, no less.

Just as a matter of clarification, I never referred to the camps set up in the United States during WWII as "concentration camps". They were not. As horrible and criminal as they were, they did not rise to the level, or, more accurately, sink to the depths of concentration camps. Places like Dachau and Auschwitz were concentration camps.

I would point out that the fact that something is widely accepted does not mean that it is correct. Many flawed and outright wrong concepts throughout history were widely accepted. I would argue that the acceptance or lack thereof is not proof of the correctness of an idea. The idea that acceptance equals proof is an error in logic.

Another problem is one of logistics. How would we decide who get's the payments? The records that were kept during that time were spotty at best when taken as a whole. Do we simply pay out to everyone who is black? What about the mixed race descendants? Should they receive only half payments? What of those Black decedents that do not hale from traceable lineages? Do they get nothing or do we pay out just to be on the safe side?

Finally, another problem I find with your argument is one of time. how do we decide who gets what from whom? For instance, you seem to believe that the descendants of slaves should receive reparations of some sort. Okay, fine, but what of the others who have suffered under governmental oppression? Should the Native Americans receive reparations? Should they receive them from the British or our government or both? What of the people persecuted during the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition during which the Church was the de facto governing body. Should the Church pay reparations to their descendants? Was their suffering lesser than the victims of slavery in America? What of the many other instances of slavery being sanctioned by the governing body? Should they receive reparations as well? And how about the atrocities carried out by the German government during WWII? Where do we draw the line and say: "your ancestors didn't suffer enough to receive reparations." You may think this is a ridiculous extreme to take this argument to but keep in mind, your argument addresses the issue of reparations to the ancestors of the victims, there for, time would not be an issue. Lets look at it from another angle and say that reparations are payed to the descendants. Would reparations then need to be payed to their children and then their children's children and so on? They would still be descendants, wouldn't they? Their suffering would still exist, wouldn't it? Now you may say that the family has already been paid, but what if the reparation funds paid out are, say, lost on the stock market. The decedents that follow would receive no benefit from the pay out yet any suffering that the parent endured would be endured by the descendant so wouldn't they be entitled reparations for their suffering as well?

As I said in my original posting, this is a red herring, smoke and mirrors that distract us from our more pressing immediate problems, of which there are many.

It boils down to this: The odds that I will change your opinion are slim at best as are the odds that you will change mine. While I would encourage discussion on this subject, ultimately this will be an issue that we will most likely have to agree to disagree on.

Again I thank you very much for your input and apologize for taking such a ridiculously long time to respond.

You Equal Treatment?!?! What the Hell is Wrong with You!

Some time ago there was a school in rural Mississippi that, rather than allow a lesbian couple to attend their prom. It is so nice to see good old fashion values still mean something and we, as a people, can extend the hand of tolerance to all people. Oh, wait! That isn't what happened here at all. Instead bigotry won the day! Now, this makes me especially proud for two reasons: not only did this happen in my home state, it happened in a town that I went to college in!

One of the things that gets me about this one is not the unapologetic bigotry, it is the not so subtle psychology at work here.

Everyone who remembers high school, raise your hand. Ok, everyone who blocked out high school, raise your hand. We all know that high school is one of the most socially difficult places on earth, unless, of course you were one of the popular kids. Even then there is the pressure of having to find ways to remain popular. Add to that "normal" pressure the unbridled joy of the student body being pissed at you for causeing the entire prom to be scrapped. Now that is class.

Although, the school did have another reason, that rallying cry of morons the world over: "For the Children!"

How does that come into play here you may ask? Simple we must prevent the children from catching "the gay". Now I know some of you might be saying that that is ridiculous. That's just what they want you to think. It is a little known and less spoken about fact that homosexuals emit a low level radiation that corrupts the biology of nearby heterosexuals. Now normally, with a single homosexual, the human body can fight off the effects. But add another homosexual to the mix, especially if they are having sex on a regular basis, and the body's defenses can become overwhelmed. Add to that a large number of people in a confined space and you have a recipe for a massive outbreak of "the gay". Think of the horror of the outbreak of tolerance that might follow! Think of it, people walking around feeling comfortable with themselves and feeling free to express their feelings in an open and honest way! *shutter* We just cannot have that! Back in the closet, you!

How did this young lady deal with this? Welcome to America, land of the litigious! She sued, of course. And what's better, she won:

"U.S. District Judge Glen H. Davidson refused to make school officials hold the prom, but he said in a March 23 ruling that the district had violated McMillen's rights."

Ok, boo on the prom thing but yay on the upholding civil rights! The greatest part of all this is that the school that basically said that she was such a bad person that they had to cancel the prom for everybody, is now sending her to college. She stated that she intends to use the $35,000 she received from the case for college tuition!

Ya gotta love that!

For those who want it, here is the link to one of the stories written about this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100720/ap_on_re_us/us_lesbian_prom_date

Rant Over... for now


On an unrelated note, can someone send me a copy of "The Gay Agenda"? I have been looking for a copy of this thing the pundits have been yammering about for years. For some reason the bookstores have stopped taking my calls.

Aaaaaand... We're off!

Welcome to the reboot of this fine (meh) blog! To those of you just tuning in: Welcome! I have relaunched this blog in the grand and traditional manner of smashing a bottle of champagne across her bow... or randomly spilling a glass of wine on my keyboard, one of the two.

Either way, I hope you enjoy and I look forward to hearing from you. Cheers!