Mike Hirshon | Student Life

My skin tone is a shade in between a raw umber and chocolate brown. On most forms, I am guessing for demographic purposes, I am Black/African American. Since elementary school, I have had this notion that February is a month for Black History. This year, as I grasp at threads to try and understand my identity, I find myself a bit perplexed.

Inspired by the linguist professor of one of my classes, I am trying to define a word that is often used as a modifier to describe me. And while it may seem to be easy to categorize “black” in a very general and broad sense, as someone of African descent whose skin tone ranges from deep tan to espresso, the reality of such classification often goes unexamined. Classification gives distinction to things and, by that understanding, acts as a construct needed by society to characterize a seemingly defining difference.

It is easy to recognize the historical momentum that continues to propel every individual in the present. The effects of African-American slavery still ripple through our society today, in actions that lie somewhere between racism and discrimination. This, in turn, has created a culture that its constituents have had, initially, little say in establishing. The harsh truth is that for many, being born black in America does not mean being born into equal opportunity. Frankly, just living as a black person in America, whether one is born here or not, is enough to feel the ramifications of the African Diaspora centuries ago. These repercussions continue to perpetuate characteristics of the aforementioned culture that very few black people have had the opportunity to create or change—and how one can even intentionally begin to change such an amorphous thing as culture is way beyond my understanding.

It is frustrating to witness the progressiveness, justice and equality our modern society ardently claims to have reached being undermined by the stark realities of such issues. It is vexing to see that “black,” a word that is often tossed around to describe people who can be so diverse, culturally, economically and socially, actually make sense. It is a twisted perspective from which no one should be comfortable viewing things. Being “black” in America is being different. To clarify, my point is to draw your attention to the fact that our society finds it OK to distinguish someone based on where they fall in a range of shades on a color spectrum.

Such classifications reflect poorly on our (American) culture. Sadly, it makes me question the degree to which we can we quantify the progress this country has undergone in the last 50 years in terms of racial equality. Honestly, a social construct is created by society and we still find it necessary to categorize people based on their skin tone (and gender, ethnicity and religion for that matter). Although intrinsically we all are equal, we currently don’t live in society where this equality is recognizable. It makes us want to try and define where this difference lies, not in the sense of causality, but in terms of what part of the population is affected by this discrepancy. I am not trying to say that seeing difference denotes inequality, but rather, to illustrate that the fact that the need to classify and tabulate this difference may be a reflection of the growth our society has had when it views race and other demographical standards: that growth is not nearly enough.

(Kelsey Eng | Student Life)

The other day someone asked me if I was Nigerian. It wasn’t because my name implies the regional language called Yoruba, nor was it a lucky guess considering that Nigeria is Africa’s most populous country. I asked why and was told something about the prominence of my cheekbones and the shape of my lips. In any instance, guessing my nationality by the way I look, particularly by a non-African, would have been pleasantly surprising. In light of events that occurred in Detroit this past December, however, I have realized that in the eyes of the Homeland Security Department, I am now much more likely to be a terrorist than I have ever been before.

I have no doubt that more security must be enacted to better prevent dangerous situations, such as the one that almost took place last Christmas, before the plane took off. But in response to that event a few weeks ago, Nigeria has joined the ranks of Cuba, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq as one of 14 “countries of interest.” The task Homeland Security faces is daunting yet so crucial to the safety of our country. Looking at the chaotic world we live in, the peace of mind Americans face—to not fear someone strapping bombs to their chest as they shop or to the bottom of the car in front of them as they wait in traffic—is greatly due to the extraordinary job agencies such as Homeland Security do to keep our country safe.

I cannot help but question the methods that are being initiated to ensure our vague sense of safety, however. Today thousands of citizens holding passports from these 14 “countries of interest” will automatically face additional screening before being allowed to board flights destined for the United States. What concerns me about these newly enacted security measures are the assumptions made by implying that a person’s nationality is an instrumental factor that leads to terrorism. Although it is naïve to say that geography is not a factor in how a person is exposed to the radicalism that often leads to acts of violence and acts of terror, it borders on discrimination to typecast everyone from a particular region based on this fact.

What is ironic, in light of the addition of countries to a list of “state sponsors of terrorism,” is that the young Nigerian who attempted to ignite explosives last month didn’t do so because he was Nigerian, but rather because of the radical beliefs he adopted while studying in Yemen. Considering the vast range of religious beliefs present not only in Nigeria, but also the span of ideological beliefs held in many of these “countries of interest,” the hours of extra screening that these citizens are subjected to seems cautious, but at the same time is vastly inefficient.

The reality that Homeland Security is left with is that the potential for an act of terrorism isn’t something that can be screened based on a country of origin, the beliefs one holds to be true, or how someone dresses or chooses to trim their facial hair. The reactionary measures that are being taken don’t do much to address the cause of terrorism, which, to be honest, requires a very complex answer and a critical look at global culture and history. While I know that I am no more likely to be a terrorist than I would be if I were born in another country, it is disheartening to think of the impact that loosely based associations, like one’s nationality and the potential to be terrorist, will have once they filter down through American culture, which will inevitably happen.

(MCT)

It seems as if this quickly ending decade has heard the words “America’s next top model is…” 92 times. In actuality, it is only the show’s 13th cycle that is about to have its finale Wednesday. That is why we have decided to take a look back at Tyra Banks’s brainchild, the phenomenon that brings another perspective to the lives of models and gives the people of this glamorous decade another fantasy to revel in. So, here goes: a list of the “ANTM” essentials.

Tyra moments

The fierce host of the show has lost and regained her sanity in front of our very eyes more times than she’s eliminated fuglies. Remember when Banks went an entire cycle with orange hair? She told her beautician to go for fiery ferocity, and what she got was carrot cake from last year’s Thanksgiving. There was also that time during Cycle 4 when redeemed bad girl Tiffany Richardson was eliminated, and Banks tried to console her, but lost her temper and “went hood” all on Richardson’s head. Richardson left, saying she “don’t have to take this from [Tyra].” Don’t get us started on the fact that Banks will not stop talking about “smizing” (smiling with your eyes) this season.

Winners vs. runners-up

As fickle an industry as modeling is, it does not always provide the best shelf life for its “employees.” Thus, if “ANTM’s” judges want to promote a positive image for models, they should graduate some who will actually do something with their lives. But they let bone-baring Jaslene beat exotic Natalia Vodianova-lookalike Natasha in Cycle 8. In Cycle 2, bubbly, surefire success Mercedes lost somehow to that manchild Yoanna. And when Whitney won, it was a wonderful moment because she was a bigger girl. But it hurt that she beat striking Anya. Most scathing, however, was when mousy, “cute” Nicole beat both ferocious catwalker Bre and ethereal beauty Nik in Cycle 5. Unforgivable.

Most beautiful uglies

“ANTM” is notorious for picking girls who are horrendous in person but take stunning pictures, or vice-versa. Cases in point: Cycle 2’s Shandi (the biggest makeover in history), Heather Kuzmich from Cycle 9, and especially the winner of Cycle 12, Teyona. These girls benefited greatly from getting their weave put in and having themselves slathered in Maybelline. And special shout-out to Lluvy, who didn’t take such great pictures and wasn’t our fave in person.

Weirdest names

Speaking of Lluvy, a lot of the girls on the show have had some awe-inducing names. Katarzyna Dolinska, Furonda Brasfield, Coryn Woitel, Xiomara Frans, Kahlen Rondot, Melrose Bickerstaff and Fo Porter are among some of the most excellent foils to the Brittanys and Ashleys of the show.

So now that this cycle is drawing to a close and we’ve recapped the craziness that has been “ANTM,” we’ll see you Wednesday when Nicole Fox (hopefully) takes the top prize. And then probably two weeks later, prepare yourself for a 14th season of Tyra Banks correcting the girls’ fierceness by demonstrating herself the exact look they’ve already done.

Recent news has reported the return of stolen artifacts and artwork such as painted reliefs from an ancient Egyptian tomb by the Louvre and the thousands of treasures that have been smuggled out Afghanistan during wartime by Britain.

However, the cry for the return of significant artifacts to their home country still remains unanswered. Some examples are Turkey’s request for the Knidos Lion and Nigeria’s request for its Benin bronze heads. For the country that holds these priceless treasures, the justification for keeping the artifacts usually includes points about how they are representative of world culture and do not belong to any country, or that the quality care these ancient works receive ccould be matched if they were returned.

Most recently, Egypt’s request for the return of the iconic bust of Queen Nefertiti from Berlin has come to the international stage. The request was made by Zahi Hawass from Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities and coincides with the reopening of the Neues Museum, which has lain in ruins in the heart of Berlin since World War II. Another factor that impedes Egypt’s quest is that Farouk Hosny, Egypt’s culture minister, lost an election to head UNESCO, the United Nations culture agency. If the bust was stolen, it seems that Egypt has every intention to get it back and let its relationship with Germany sour in the meantime. Although the truth about what happened when Nefertiti’s bust was found in 1912 has been lost in history, the conflict must nevertheless be resolved today.

But unfortunately, it seems that an issue like this—political agendas aside—comes down to the answers to some hard questions. For example, is there a clear distinction between art and artifact? Can either be owned or traded for? Who has the authority to speak for something that represents an entire culture and, more importantly, who is an individual to decide to give it away? Does an historical artifact belong to a specific country, or rather, does it belong to all as a record of the greater journey in human civilization?

Although I do not know the answers to all of these questions, I do believe that Germany has a unique opportunity to set the tone in this coming age of global understanding and equality by doing something completely unprecedented. By returning a symbol of history, culture and art back to its homeland, Germany would acknowledge Egypt, and by extension other countries facing similar issues, as counterpart curators of world history.

Kemi is a freshman in Arts & Sciences. She can be reached via e-mail at imekkemi@gmail.com.

I recall the song I learned in elementary school: “In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue…” While I am sure that there are many variations taught in schools across the country, I am also certain that most continue with sickly sweet honey-glossed lyrics that drip with rotten, glazed-over historical half-truths, to be generous. Some of the verses I learned are as follows:

“Indians! Indians! Columbus cried; his heart was filled with joyful pride.”

“He made the trip again and again, trading gold to bring to Spain.”

“The first American? No, not quite. But Columbus was brave, and he was bright.”

It would be more apt if these lyrics were changed to:

“Indians! Indians! Columbus cried; let’s sell them into slavery and begin a genocide.”

“He made the trip again and again, seizing many innocents to bring to Spain.”

“The first American? No, not quite. But Columbus thought the land of others was his right.”

As more historical truths about Columbus’s journeys to the Americas continue to be uncovered, it has become all too clear that the explorer wasn’t as “brave and bright” as a generic version of the history taught at American schools and the federal holiday named in his honor might make him out to be. I wonder: Is it right to continue to venerate this 15th-century Italian whose explorations of the West Indies led to the enslavement and decimation of indigenous populations through brutality, violence and disease? To me, it is not, especially when we examine those American heroes who are also honored with national days of remembrance: veterans, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Over 500 years later, we as a society can no longer continue to glaze over the wildfire of negative ramifications spurned by Columbus’ exploration of the West Indies (and subsequent European forays into the western hemisphere). It seems odd that the government recognizes Columbus as a hero when history testifies otherwise. Why does America, whose history is rich with dozens of heroes who have advocated for freedom, justice and equality, still choose to honor the memory of a lost 15th-century explorer whose journey resulted in ideas and actions that were anything but free, just and equal?

Kemi is a freshman in Arts & Sciences. She can be reached via e-mail at imekkemi@gmail.com.

Frank Ockenfels | Fox

In the realm of childhood, a dollhouse is a place where anything is possible. Recollection of past dolls and dollhouses owned (at least for most of the female gender) brings back memories of the pure narrative of innocence that filled cloudless days with the life of our beloved stuffed animals and plastic dolls.

Entering its second season, Fox’s “Dollhouse” certainly embodies the “anything is possible” aspect of its namesake. The “Dollhouse” is an illegal organization filled with “dolls” or programmable people who can have any persona, biography and experiences imprinted on their minds at the discretion of their clients—for a hefty price. During the 12 episodes that comprised Season 1, the personas that Echo (Eliza Dushku), an “Active (doll)” at the Dollhouse, undertook (anyone from a hostage negotiator to a background singer/bodyguard) clearly demonstrated the wide range of personalities that dolls could be imprinted with.

Season 2, whose first episode aired at 8 p.m. on Fox this past Friday, promises to be filled with an even more intriguing plot and deeper character development than the first. The season opener began with Echo being programmed with her 40th personality, the soon-to-be bride of British arms dealer Martin Klar (Jamie Bamber), to the great apprehension of former FBI agent Paul Ballard (Tahmoh Penikett). Having developed a serious infatuation with Echo during the first season, Agent Ballard is worried that her increasing self-awareness might lead to the same composition of personalities that led a former Active, known as Alpha, on a serial-killing rampage. At the same time Dr. Claire Saunders (Liza Lapira), who takes care of the Actives at the Dollhouse, is having a hard time coping with the recent realization that she is the former Active “Whiskey,” and her new persona is in fact another personality programmed by the young scientist Topher Brink (Fran Kranz). If you watch the show, it makes complete sense.

“Dollhouse” already stands out by being a science fiction-based show among the slew of teen soap operas, reality TV shows, hospital dramas and the never-ending lawyer/cop series that seem to saturate prime-time viewership. The drama is a refreshing breath of something different this fall; it is sure to continue to captivate audiences by the questions that the premise brings to light. It is unsettling to see how easily the deepest emotions considered unique to humanity, such as love, hope and passion, can be manufactured. This season is full of promise as the conflicts and dilemmas faced by the Actives and their “Handlers” continue to deepen with intrigue. The question posed by being able to have a human “doll,” subject to whatever narrative the imagination wishes, remains on the verge of being answered. “Dollhouse” will surely keep faithful viewers on the edge of their seats during its 13-episode run this year.

Rating: 4/5
Watch it: Fox, Fridays at 8 p.m.
Staring: Eliza Dushku