Ugh, I feel so guilty about making this about me. I feel so bad for the victims, their families and friends, for the runners, for everyone near by, for the citizen of Boston who have now joined the ranks of a city under terrorist attack, with all the perpetual fear and uncertainty that it entails. The marathon, and the city and people of Boston, will never be the same. But I feel this big ball of combined grief and anxiety now. Can I walk outside? Can I cross streets? Should I wear my black scarf? Feh.
I like Homeland. I like that it’s not portraying Islam as the contributing factor behind Brody’s evil actions. But I can’t help but feel it’s missed a few opportunities.
There are four main terrorist characters that we’ve seen: Abu Nazir, Brody, Roya, and Tom Walker. And yes, Brody is a terrorist. You cannot ask us for more than a decade to call out and reject any sign of terrorism in our people and then not expect us to be able to identify it. He went into a chamber filled with people while wearing a suicide vest and pressed the trigger. He was going to kill many people, including himself, some innocent, some not, but even had they all been war criminals, neither Islam nor American law condones execution at the hands of a vigilante. He is a terrorist and in no way represents my religion.
Oh, but his defenders will say that he was held under supreme psychological torture and then saw with his own eyes what havoc America wreaks. Yes. Under what conditions do they think real, living terrorists are made?
So yes, Brody is a terrorist, and somehow, as a white male, the only one of the four main terrorists to be portrayed in a sympathetic light and given any justification. Even Abu Nazir, who at first seems to define the very stereotype of terrorist leader. Before the death of Isah, he had already been anti-American and could have been for a great many reasons, including the invasion of Iraq, Al Qaeda type ideologies, etc. But which was it? Did he see other people die at the hands of America? Could he have been–gasp–humanized in some way?
Tom Walker deserved much more explanation than he got. Presumably there was no other boy, no other Isah-equivalent, for Abu Nazir to use to win his sympathy. Then? Total coincidence that the second of two main Black characters (the first of whom was the sycophantic, always wrong David Estes) was an American marine who was so easily brainwashed by terrorists we didn’t even see how it happened?
The biggest opportunity Homeland missed, though, and one for which I would have handwaved away the others is when we finally focused on Roya. We had her at the interrogation table! For a brief moment, she even pretended to have fallen down the same hole Brody did, but quickly and cruelly denied that. What, then, did it take for this (presumably Western-)educated woman to help Abu Nazir? What would make her give up her freedom and conscience to help bring about a world which Abu Nazir wanted, one for which there would be no place for the Roya as we know her. Did she see her own family killed? Does she carry very strict religious beliefs within her? Does she the injustices committed by the US and want to retaliate? Has she, even as a citizen in the West, always felt an outsider? This wouldhave been the besttime to show how some of the most dangerous Islamic terrorists are made, sympathizers who have grown up in the West and can easily move about without raising (too much) suspicion, as opposed to US soldiers caught and brainwashed.
I like Homeland. I like that it’s not portraying Islam as the contributing factor behind Brody’s evil actions. But I can’t help but feel it’s missed a few opportunities.
There are four main terrorist characters that we’ve seen: Abu Nazir, Brody, Roya, and Tom Walker. And yes, Brody is a terrorist. You cannot ask us for more than a decade to call out and reject any sign of terrorism in our people and then not expect us to be able to identify it. He went into a chamber filled with people while wearing a suicide vest and pressed the trigger. He was going to kill many people, including himself, some innocent, some not, but even had they all been war criminals, neither Islam nor American law condones execution at the hands of a vigilante. He is a terrorist and in no way represents my religion.
Oh, but his defenders will say that he was held under supreme psychological torture and then saw with his own eyes what havoc America wreaks. Yes. Under what conditions do they think real, living terrorists are made?
So yes, Brody is a terrorist, and somehow, as a white male, the only one of the four main terrorists to be portrayed in a sympathetic light and given any justification. Even Abu Nazir, who at first seems to define the very stereotype of terrorist leader. Before the death of Isah, he had already been anti-American and could have been for a great many reasons, including the invasion of Iraq, Al Qaeda type ideologies, etc. But which was it? Did he see other people die at the hands of America? Could he have been–gasp–humanized in some way?
Tom Walker deserved much more explanation than he got. Presumably there was no other boy, no other Isah-equivalent, for Abu Nazir to use to win his sympathy. Then? Total coincidence that the second of two main Black characters (the first of whom was the sycophantic, always wrong David Estes) was an American marine who was so easily brainwashed by terrorists we didn’t even see how it happened?
The biggest opportunity Homeland missed, though, and one for which I would have handwaved away the others is when we finally focused on Roya. We had her at the interrogation table! For a brief moment, she even pretended to have fallen down the same hole Brody did, but quickly and cruelly denied that. What, then, did it take for this (presumably Western-)educated woman to help Abu Nazir? What would make her give up her freedom and conscience to help bring about a world which Abu Nazir wanted, one for which there would be no place for the Roya as we know her. Did she see her own family killed? Does she carry very strict religious beliefs within her? Does she the injustices committed by the US and want to retaliate? Has she, even as a citizen in the West, always felt an outsider? This wouldhave been the besttime to show how some of the most dangerous Islamic terrorists are made, sympathizers who have grown up in the West and can easily move about without raising (too much) suspicion, as opposed to US soldiers caught and brainwashed.
I like Homeland. I like that it’s not portraying Islam as the contributing factor behind Brody’s evil actions. But I can’t help but feel it’s missed a few opportunities.
There are four main terrorist characters that we’ve seen: Abu Nazir, Brody, Roya, and Tom Walker. And yes, Brody is a terrorist. You cannot ask us for more than a decade to call out and reject any sign of terrorism in our people and then not expect us to be able to identify it. He went into a chamber filled with people while wearing a suicide vest and pressed the trigger. He was going to kill many people, including himself, some innocent, some not, but even had they all been war criminals, neither Islam nor American law condones execution at the hands of a vigilante. He is a terrorist and in no way represents my religion.
Oh, but his defenders will say that he was held under supreme psychological torture and then saw with his own eyes what havoc America wreaks. Yes. Under what conditions do they think real, living terrorists are made?
So yes, Brody is a terrorist, and somehow, as a white male, the only one of the four main terrorists to be portrayed in a sympathetic light and given any justification. Even Abu Nazir, who at first seems to define the very stereotype of terrorist leader. Before the death of Isah, he had already been anti-American and could have been for a great many reasons, including the invasion of Iraq, Al Qaeda type ideologies, etc. But which was it? Did he see other people die at the hands of America? Could he have been–gasp–humanized in some way?
Tom Walker deserved much more explanation than he got. Presumably there was no other boy, no other Isah-equivalent, for Abu Nazir to use to win his sympathy. Then? Total coincidence that the second of two main Black characters (the first of whom was the sycophantic, always wrong David Estes) was an American marine who was so easily brainwashed by terrorists we didn’t even see how it happened?
The biggest opportunity Homeland missed, though, and one for which I would have handwaved away the others is when we finally focused on Roya. We had her at the interrogation table! For a brief moment, she even pretended to have fallen down the same hole Brody did, but quickly and cruelly denied that. What, then, did it take for this (presumably Western-)educated woman to help Abu Nazir? What would make her give up her freedom and conscience to help bring about a world which Abu Nazir wanted, one for which there would be no place for the Roya as we know her. Did she see her own family killed? Does she carry very strict religious beliefs within her? Does she the injustices committed by the US and want to retaliate? Has she, even as a citizen in the West, always felt an outsider? This wouldhave been the besttime to show how some of the most dangerous Islamic terrorists are made, sympathizers who have grown up in the West and can easily move about without raising (too much) suspicion, as opposed to US soldiers caught and brainwashed.
“trying too hard to be diverse/inclusive” is such a bullshit complaint. you get people sneering at a show (or movie or book or OH NO someone’s headcanon) that isn’t all 100% straight white dudes, rolling their eyes at ~the PC police~, talking over marginalized people and their experiences, etc. there were a bunch of posts along that line of thought in the elementary tag a while ago. I’ve thought a lot about it and it’s still……..bullshit.
like?? oh no? some people in the world are making an active attempt to include PoC and queer people and trans* people in media and stories and stuff instead of lazily sticking to the same old repetitive straight-white-cis-dudebro-bromance formula? how is this a bad thing what is the problem here
are you blogging your complaints from some magical alternate universe with a surplus of queer women of color in every important role ever? do you have too many well-written trans* lead characters in your super popular BBC shows? (also is your strange mirror universe technologically advanced enough to create some kind of universe-crossing portal machine)
what are you criticizing when you say something is “trying to hard to be diverse”? is it the idea of effort? the idea that queer people/trans* people/PoC exist? (and exist outside of narratives that serve to place straight white cis protagonists on a pedestal while teaching said protag a mystical lesson about ~different walks of life~?) are you under the impression that the world is full of white people and that everyone else is a minority because oh boy lemme tell you that is not even close to being mathematically correct?? or is that you feel the only stories worth telling are white ones?
also for all your rainbow puking gifs and declarations of “SO GAY!!” whenever two white male characters glance vaguely in each other’s directions, you seem to have the idea that queer people are but fleeting metaphorical unicorns existing on an unearthly plane, summoned hither-thither by the whims of straight fans. this honor, of course, is reserved solely for white cis dudes you can imagine fucking each other, as the idea of, say, a queer trans* WoC would just be too much in comparison to your very tasteful and subtle t-shirt about how “SOME CONSULTING DETECTIVES MARRY ARMY DOCTORS!” right
like we get a lot of lip service from people about how more representation of “”“”minorities”“”“” would be great, but when you get right down to it, what a lot of ~allies~ really want is the bare minimum of possible representation that won’t make them too uncomfortable or make them think too hard about their own prejudices, that will create the illusion of challenging oppression in society, the kind that will expend the least amount of effort from themselves but will earn them the maximum amount of masturbatory applause
and when we actually do get some well-written representation, you either shit all over it or say “well isn’t that nice! aren’t we nice to let you have this one single character? now let’s get back to making straight white characters, you know, the normal kind!” so when you say something is “too diverse” or “trying too hard”, what you’re saying really is that you want complacency and passive behavior, you want wacky side characters and fetishized cliches, you want “”“”minorities”“” to keep their mouths shut unless they have something nice to say about the bones you throw them when you’re feeling charitable, you want to take away their history and desires and anger
it all becomes about how the stories of PoC and queer and trans* people can be made about you, how they can accommodate you, how they can entertain you, and you’re all so busy patting yourselves on the back for faking being a decent human being so well that you’d rather patronize and dismiss the concerns of real life marginalized people than consider how much of a giant shining asshole you are
“trying too hard to be diverse/inclusive” is such a bullshit complaint. you get people sneering at a show (or movie or book or OH NO someone’s headcanon) that isn’t all 100% straight white dudes, rolling their eyes at ~the PC police~, talking over marginalized people and their experiences, etc. there were a bunch of posts along that line of thought in the elementary tag a while ago. I’ve thought a lot about it and it’s still……..bullshit.
like?? oh no? some people in the world are making an active attempt to include PoC and queer people and trans* people in media and stories and stuff instead of lazily sticking to the same old repetitive straight-white-cis-dudebro-bromance formula? how is this a bad thing what is the problem here
are you blogging your complaints from some magical alternate universe with a surplus of queer women of color in every important role ever? do you have too many well-written trans* lead characters in your super popular BBC shows? (also is your strange mirror universe technologically advanced enough to create some kind of universe-crossing portal machine)
what are you criticizing when you say something is “trying to hard to be diverse”? is it the idea of effort? the idea that queer people/trans* people/PoC exist? (and exist outside of narratives that serve to place straight white cis protagonists on a pedestal while teaching said protag a mystical lesson about ~different walks of life~?) are you under the impression that the world is full of white people and that everyone else is a minority because oh boy lemme tell you that is not even close to being mathematically correct?? or is that you feel the only stories worth telling are white ones?
also for all your rainbow puking gifs and declarations of “SO GAY!!” whenever two white male characters glance vaguely in each other’s directions, you seem to have the idea that queer people are but fleeting metaphorical unicorns existing on an unearthly plane, summoned hither-thither by the whims of straight fans. this honor, of course, is reserved solely for white cis dudes you can imagine fucking each other, as the idea of, say, a queer trans* WoC would just be too much in comparison to your very tasteful and subtle t-shirt about how “SOME CONSULTING DETECTIVES MARRY ARMY DOCTORS!” right
like we get a lot of lip service from people about how more representation of “”“”minorities”“”“” would be great, but when you get right down to it, what a lot of ~allies~ really want is the bare minimum of possible representation that won’t make them too uncomfortable or make them think too hard about their own prejudices, that will create the illusion of challenging oppression in society, the kind that will expend the least amount of effort from themselves but will earn them the maximum amount of masturbatory applause
and when we actually do get some well-written representation, you either shit all over it or say “well isn’t that nice! aren’t we nice to let you have this one single character? now let’s get back to making straight white characters, you know, the normal kind!” so when you say something is “too diverse” or “trying too hard”, what you’re saying really is that you want complacency and passive behavior, you want wacky side characters and fetishized cliches, you want “”“”minorities”“” to keep their mouths shut unless they have something nice to say about the bones you throw them when you’re feeling charitable, you want to take away their history and desires and anger
it all becomes about how the stories of PoC and queer and trans* people can be made about you, how they can accommodate you, how they can entertain you, and you’re all so busy patting yourselves on the back for faking being a decent human being so well that you’d rather patronize and dismiss the concerns of real life marginalized people than consider how much of a giant shining asshole you are
