If You Want Peace, Raise Peacemakers

Something that I find funny--actually, rather disconcerting--is how, from a young age, we raise our children to resolve problems civilly and peacefully, yet also inundate them with the one thing that effectively contradicts that message: militarization.  Yes, I do understand that playground squabbles aren't exactly the same as world conflicts, but what is essentially happening is that adults--who are the adults in the situation--are handling their issues more immaturely than how they are telling their kids to.  Little man, use your words, not your fists--but I'll bypass the civil discourse and break out the high-powered weaponry.

I haven't really done the research, but off the top of my head, every developed nation that I can think of is a military culture to some extent.  This directly leads to many of the conflicts worldwide; the teachings manifest themselves down the road as the "only course of action".  I can only speak for the United States, but it is definitely forced upon our citizens from birth.  From toy guns and plastic army men, to ROTC and on-campus recruiters, to video games such as "Call of Duty", it is indoctrination at its best.  This encouragement--and desensitization to violence--leads to acceptance and rationalization as children grow up.  Patriotism and nationalism--banes of society--are played out in the all-but-required Pledge of Allegiance at schools, the National Anthem at sporting events, and simply in the existence of the Boy and Girl Scouts.

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert at international issues currently at hand, but I do know the Gaza Strip conflict roots back sixty-some years.  Seeing as most people involved in that situation were not alive at the genesis, their perceptions have been directly influenced by what they have been taught, which--on both sides--favored themselves.  In that instance, there will never be a consensus on who's right or wrong, so the only appropriate course is to move forward.  

If I were to renounce my pacifist ways, it would probably be over something like the ISIS crisis, but I deep down believe that there is a civil solution to it.  It's a HORRIBLE situation, but violence only begets more violence.  In this and the aforementioned Gaza conflict, violence is only going to eliminate more and more people and regions--there will be no building from it.  Focus needs to be on civil and rational dialogue.  That starts from youth.  The way that youth is impressionable regarding propaganda in favor of military action is the same way they would be for education against it.

Boys, especially, are expected to adorn themselves in camouflage everything and anything and incorporate guns in some fashion into every game they play.  As much as I would have LOVED to have a little Jason Robert (whom I would affectionately call Jr. Jr.), I must say one of the benefits of having only girls is avoiding those societal pressures (although the influence hasn't exactly been absent from my daughters' lives).

While I grew up in a military home, perhaps it was because my dad was in the Coast Guard or that he just didn't shove it down our throats that I was able to form my own train of thought and choose the alternate path.  I love my father to death and respect him immensely as a human being and a dad, but when people say that I am disrespecting him with my beliefs, I am just as offended that its not acknowledged that the views of me and people like me are disrespected by military action.  I in no way feel that servicemen and women don't have their hearts in the right place or don't think they're doing what's right, but what they've been taught from early on tells them that the course of action they are taking is the right one.

This being the hundredth anniversary of the start of the first world war has countries around the world celebrating it, rather than denouncing it--this encourages that type of conflict resolution.  While participants in war are celebrated and given ticker-tape parades upon return, pacifists and conscientious objectors are ostracized, and sometimes hated--forced to live in the shadows.  To paraphrase Gandhi, I would die for a cause--and I have nothing but respect for those who do--but I wouldn't kill for one.

In my opinion, much of the animosity between nations is due to the lack of communication and dialogue.  Enemies are created--they're not natural.  I don't live in fear of randomly getting punched by someone, because I stay on good terms with people.  When I do get in disagreements, I keep it civil and respectful.  This whole entitlement, exceptionalism, and "We're the greatest country in the world" mantra is of course going to rub folks the wrong way.  Many countries (the United States disproportionately) have bases in within the borders of other nations under the guise of support and defense; it wouldn't look that way if I set up shop in somebody else's house.

We need to rid ourselves of the "God, family, country" mentality and replace it with "God, family, humanity".  National borders and sovereignty need to be eliminated, as much of the international strife is based on patriotic ego, much like a gang mentality.  "Don't Tread on Me" encourages reaction rather than proaction; I once was wearing a world peace shirt, and I was told that we would start practicing it when others did--nobody wants to step forward and be the trailblazer.  This comes directly from the "show me respect and I'll respect you" mentality--I hear it from the kids at my job all the time--that is so often instilled in them by their parents; if everyone was waiting for others to respect them before they showed it, there would be very little respect going around.  It has to start somewhere.

Before I wrap this up, I feel I need to include this disclaimer, as not to give people the wrong impression: This piece is not just about America.  This is not an anti-American article (I am not anti-American, but anti-nation).  This is about an effort that needs to be made in ALL CORNERS of the globe in order for the human race to sustain.  With all the advances in technology, medical, and science, why can't we evolve in this area, as well?

In conclusion, if you want peace in the end, start from the beginning.  

PEACE.

Marvel encompasses the entire universe

Since 2008, when Phil Coulson and Nick Fury, Agents of SHIELD, appeared in “Iron Man”, every Marvel Studios production (this does not include Marvel Comics properties “X-Men” and “Spider-Man”, whose rights are held by Fox and Sony, respectively) has shared the same world, collectively known as the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU).  They’ve even disclaimed that they are planning it out until 2028 (2028!), but I’ll get into the quantity of movies and longevity of the continuum in a bit.  While a shared cinematic vision makes sense for the studio (for the most part), fanboys, and diehard comic fans, it presents as possibly problematic for the average viewer.

Throughout Hollywood’s history, there have been examples of movies outside of their own franchises being connected—directors frequently include unique trademarks in all of their films; Disney (who happens to own Marvel) hides Easter eggs and sprinkles references to other movies, indicating a possible shared world—but nothing that alludes to an overall like universe.

The MCU is a different can of worms.  Every single entry has a distinct relationship to the rest, which could lead to dependency on knowledge of the other stories, confusion, and (oh no, a cinefile’s worst nightmare!) major continuity errors.  As I mentioned, the studio has plans to potentially carry this out to (at least) 2028, which means that, starting with the first “Iron Man”, that will be 20 years of intertwined movies—likely around 40 of them, given Marvel’s goal of releasing two, maybe three, a year.

I am by no means a hardcore-enough fan to even care about all this, not to mention follow it.  I actually prefer DC Comics and movies (more on that later), but even with their films, I’m not that serious outside of Batman and Superman.  In fact, as far as the MCU goes, I haven’t seen “The Incredible Hulk” or the “Thor” films, and I only really saw and own “The Avengers” because of Iron Man’s inclusion.  The next one to be released, the unorthodox “Guardians of the Galaxy” comes out in August of this year, and I will probably see it at some point when it hits Blu-ray.  Other than the “Iron Man” franchise, the “Avengers” series (again, because of IM), and—because of the unexpected awesomeness of “The Winter Soldier”—the “Captain America” movies, I really have no interest in any of the other films.  I couldn’t care less about “Ant-Man” (although Paul Rudd might convince me otherwise) or “Doctor Strange”.  And those just round out phase three, through 2016.

See, the issue here is reliance on outside knowledge to enjoy or even understand what’s going on in the film you are currently watching.  My favorite Marvel movie franchise (outside of Fox’s “X-Men”) is “Iron Man”, but the second (which I feel is a lot better than it gets credit for) and the third are simply bookends to the first “Avengers” team-up film: while the first “IM” briefly introduced the idea of SHIELD and the Avengers Initiative, the second was simply a build-up, and the third relied far too heavily on “The Avengers”.  That is probably my biggest qualm with that entry (which had potential to be the best in the series), other than every line being a joke or every scene having a punchline:a major part of Tony Stark’s personality (specifically his PTSD) was directly related to a movie not even in the same franchise.  

At least I had seen “The Avengers”—so I was familiar with its significant role in “IM3”—and thankfully in that movie, which was my introduction to Thor and that iteration of the Hulk, it didn’t depend too much on those characters’ previous films.  Now just imagine a countless number of other franchises that could possibly play a large part in the make-up of the larger picture.  It’s madness.

Regarding both the quantity of movies and the story’s longevity, quality and originality are bound to take a hit.  While both of these are primarily affected by varying directors and screenwriting teams, there’re only so many similar stories you can tell before the freshness wears off.  Another question raised online is what happens with the original cast of characters when the actors move on.  Do you recast Tony Stark when Robert Downey, Jr.—the glue of this universe—calls it quits (let’s face it, he’s not getting any younger)?  Chris Evans has said that after his contract is up, he wants to retire from acting, which potentially leads to Anthony Mackie taking over as Cap, mirroring the events in the current comic run.  If something—God forbid—happens to one of the primary actors over the course of the next 14 years, what needs to be done?  I don’t see it as making sense to have Iron Man remain as Tony Stark stuck in time; when RDJ is out, either retire the hero altogether or have another character take up the mantle.  In real life, people retire, die, or otherwise move on, so they should do that in this continuity to reflect reality.  This would also accommodate the changing demographics—I’m 33 and already have only vested interest in Iron Man, but I can’t guarantee even that much at 47 (my parents watch the movies, but are not invested in the MCU as a shared world, so for people like them, it’s much more beneficial for the films to be standalones).  Finally, when series get too long, it becomes overkill; I actually think the current trend of the trilogy is the way to go: beginning, middle, and end.

When a new installment of a series comes out, I like to revisit the previous entries before the new one’s release.  I did it when “IM3” came out, including “The Avengers”, and will rewatch those movies again before the second one, “The Age of Ultron”, hits theaters (or possibly home for me).  If I were hardcore, I’d be watching every MCU movie up to that point.  Can you imagine when that number of films hits 25?  I don’t have time to sit down and watch movie after movie, so that would probably mean watching them all over the course of a year before the next annual pair hits, and that’s not mentioning the boatloads of money I would drop because I would simply have to have all the movies.  I have other things to do—and, honestly, other types of movies to watch.  Fortunately, I’m not that hardcore…but some people are.  With the “Dark Knight” trilogy, I did that, and I will rewatch “Man of Steel” before “Batman v Superman” (and probably the trilogy again, even though it’s not connected, because it’s awesome).  Same with “X-Men”.

Speaking of “X-Men”, shared continuities are seemingly becoming the new trend.  Whereas the X-franchise had its own series with a bit of Wolverine solo films thrown in, there are now talks that it might crossover with the (unnecessary) “Fantastic Four” reboot, as well as spinning off into solo releases.  The (also unnecessary) “Spider-Man” reboot is going to have villain-centric “Sinister Six” and “Venom” movies (that’s if this series doesn’t crash and burn first, even though they have already set the release dates for the next TWO sequels).  The third “Star Wars” trilogy is going to alternate years with solo character films.

Now, onto DC.  As before mentioned, though I like Marvel, I’m a DC guy first and foremost (look, you can like both and be civil about it!).  Actually, I’m a Batman guy first and foremost, and am definitely feeling this new incarnation of Superman.  Honestly, I didn’t feel we needed to see any more Batman for a long while (there’s that overkill I mentioned, although from what I’ve heard and seen about Ben Affleck’s take, I’m really excited) after Christopher Nolan’s movies, but money talks.  (I read that they were talking to Affleck months before “Man of Steel” “bombed” (i.e., didn’t make a billion dollars), so although it looks purely financial on the surface, that might not be the case.)  Although I’m not as opposed to Bats and Supes sharing the screen as I once was, I’m a bit skeptical about “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” transforming from a “MoS” sequel into a Justice League introduction.  As much love as I have for the Caped Crusader and the Last Son of Krypton, I am kind of hesitant to invest into anything outside of their little circle: I honestly don’t see myself watching a Wonder Woman movie, or a Cyborg movie, or a Flash movie, or an Aquaman movie (especially Aquaman…that’s for my boy Jake!).  The thing is, though, as long as Batman is involved in any JL projects, I will be watching.  Like I said, I don’t feel there was the need to reintroduce him in the first place (as I was really focusing my attention on the new Superman storyline), but, since they did, I’d prefer they keep it solo (with a few Affleck-centric films with him as an aging Bruce Wayne, culminating with him passing the torch to Terry McGinnis for a “Batman Beyond” finale to the series).

Wow.  That’s a lot to take in.  Whatever happened to a movie being a movie (or a series simply being a series)?  There’s nothing wrong with standalones; not everything has to be connected.  Why must everything be remade or rebooted?  Leave things as they were and appreciate them like that: the “Fantastic Four” movies were atrocious, but that doesn’t mean we should give it another go (and who’s to say the new ones will do any better?); and, although not the pinnacle of superhero films, the original “Spider-Man” franchise was successful financially and critically, so what’s the purpose in revisiting it?  And, no, “X-Men” does NOT need to be rebooted when the rights “revert to Marvel” (stupid fanboys).

In the future, I hope filmmakers consider these three words: Keep it simple.

Wazzup wit Drake?

I've never been a big fan of Drake.  I've just never cared for his music; as Common said, "If I don't like it, I don't like it; it don't mean that I'm hatin'."  And, being a relative newcomer calling himself the greatest ever on a track that also featured frickin' Eminem also didn't help his cause--that's a pretty audacious claim to make in the first place, not to mention in the company of one of the all-time legends.  Personally, though, I never really had an issue with him.  Lately, however, he's starting to present as a sore loser and a whiner.

Drake recently hosted the ESPYs--I didn't watch it, as I don't have cable, but then again, I never watched it when I did--and, from what I hear, he can't let go of a grudge, especially one he should have never had to begin with.  (First off, what exactly has he done to earn the duty of hosting a major awards show?)  I guess in a song he was performing, he made reference to real music not winning Grammys, an obvious allusion to him losing to Macklemore this year.

A few months back, Macklemore and his producer, Ryan Lewis, won the Grammy for Best Rap Album (and I believe Best New Artist).  After that win, he texted another newcomer, Kendrick Lamar, that he felt he robbed him of the award...and then instagramed it.  The sentiment was awesome, but, even as a fan of Seattle's great hope, I felt that was pretty ill-advised: broadcasting your humility is kind of the opposite of being modest (if Kendrick would've posted the text himself, it would've been all good).  But that wasn't Drake's beef; he felt that every other nominee (himself, Jay-Z, and Kanye West) in that category should've received an apologetic text, insinuating that Macklemore robbed all of them, as well.  He proceeded to throw a Twitter tantrum about it.

Macklemore obviously felt that Kendrick had the album to beat--nobody else did.  That's not to say that he disliked the other albums--only, if anyone were to win the Grammy, it should be Kendrick.  Drake also went on to say that if he felt his album was so bad, he should try harder to make a better record.  Implying that another artist deserved more praise than you does not mean you think your own stuff sucks--I honestly don't get his logic here.

Drake, did you even listen to his album?  If you did and legitimately didn't like it, that's cool.  But, for whatever reason, you are straight-up hating.  Lewis's production was on-point, as were Macklemore's lyrics, and his flow is essentially the same as yours.  To say that it is any less "real" than yours is asinine.  Oh, and, Aubrey, both Macklemore and Kendrick were also nominated for Album of the Year, so that says something, too.

Almost forgot, he also bitched about being replaced on the cover of Rolling Stone by Phillip Seymour Hoffman after the actor's untimely passing.  Like I said, I really don't have a problem with him, but he sounds like a cry baby.

Shut up, Drake.  Actually, grow up.

The American Football Squadron Based In the Nation's Capitol

I am a fan of the Washington football team.  I have been for twenty-six years, and I plan to continue to be for the rest of my life.  However, I have grown to not be a fan of the team name.  I have been on the fence about this—privately—for about fifteen years, but I have recently realized the disrespect and hurt it causes or may cause others.  Regardless of the statistics of the number of people that are on record as being offended, people are offended.  It could be one percent of the population, but why do the feelings of that one percent not matter?

I in no way believe that the organization itself or supporters of the name are racist.  But just because you’re not racist doesn’t mean the name isn’t.  I do believe that blind loyalty (which never leads to anything good) to the franchise or an adamant opposition to being labeled as PC is a major part of the issue here.  When it hits close to home, people don’t want to admit—or recognize—doing something wrong.  The “tradition” argument doesn’t hold up.

Just because you don’t think something is wrong doesn’t mean others should “man up” to accommodate your views.  Great, you have thick skin.  That doesn’t mean those who don’t are weak; that means that they have feelings.

A good friend asked how the name is racist.  How is it not?  To use the clichéd argument, would you call a Native American a Redskin to their face?  She then asked if I would be upset if they were called the Whiteskins.  I would.  I wouldn’t necessarily be offended, per se, as we are labeled as white; but why would a mascot like that be appropriate?  Even though some African Americans prefer to be called black, I don’t think they would be comfortable with a team being called the Blackskins.  Oh, and do you know why Redskin could be taken as offensive?  While “white” and “black” are common labels for Caucasians and African Americans, I’ve never heard Native American being referred to as “red”.

I remember as a teenager seeing a clip from a Chris Rock stand-up special.  “Washington Redskins?” he asks in his usual loud way.  “How about the New York Niggers?”  Or what about the San Jose Spics?  The Bronx Wops?  I’m surprised Dave Chappelle never did a skit about a league with these names.

Why shouldn’t Vikings or Pirates or Buccaneers be forced to change their names?  Apples to oranges.  While one might feel that they are inappropriate monikers—because they glorify violence, rape, pillaging, etc.—and think they have no place in sports leagues, the argument doesn’t fit with one about a name like Redskins.  It’s a valid argument, but it is based on glorification of those things—and based on a chosen occupation.  Not on one’s skin color.  Something they’re born with.  As a pacifist and a teetotaler, I think the names Warriors and Brewers send a wrong message.  But that’s a discussion for another day.

This shouldn’t just apply to Redskins, but I also disagree with the sentiment that anything Native American should be targeted.  Names like Braves and Chiefs are in fact honorable.  Seminoles are named after a tribe and the Blackhawks are named after a Native American leader.  None of these make reference to skin color.  Their mascots or logos might be offensive, but the names themselves?  Not so much.  The Cleveland Indians is a misnomer, as—even though it’s a common and somewhat accepted name—they are not from India; this is another name I feel should be dropped.  People don’t call me Filipino; I wouldn’t necessarily take offense to that, because they’re a good people, but that’s not who I am.  (Note: I am in no way trying to say that Native Americans or people of Native American descent can’t or don’t find the names in this paragraph disparaging, but I wanted to point out reasons why I think they shouldn’t be used in the same argument as Redskin.)

I have no doubt that the Redskin moniker in some people’s minds is a sign of honor, and that may have been the idea when the team was founded.  There is the argument that it is a term of endearment.  But times have changed.  But why wasn’t it offensive eighty years ago?  I’m sure it was.  Again, times have changed.  Back then, it was a white man’s America.  Minorities couldn't speak out against things like this back then without being ostracized even more or worrying about their safety.

I will acknowledge that there are many Native Americans who support the name and oppose a mascot change, and, while I obviously do not agree with them, I respect their opinion and the right to that view.  However, I pose this question: what do you stand to lose in the case of a name change?  What do those who feel offended and insulted have to gain?  Their dignity.  Their self-worth.  Respect and being seen as equals.

Many people online have equaled a name change to censorship; how many of you making this comparison wouldn't be upset if your child heard the f-bomb or any other profanity on the radio?  (Not everyone, but a lot of parents would not be happy about that.)  Let's take the legal name change and censorship out of the argument, and strip it down to this basic question: Why do you insist on using a name such as this when you know--agree with it or not--that it offends people?  Is it in your nature to hurt people's feelings?  Or is it more about getting a point across and standing up for free speech, at others' expenses?

Maybe the government shouldn’t be getting as involved in this issue as they have been.  Why should they have to?  They wouldn’t need to if the appropriate steps were taken.  When it’s getting to the point when outside pressure is needed and the patent office strips your trademark, that should say something.  Whether it’s one percent or seventy-five percent of the population, they need to be respected and heard (I’ve heard enough of people who aren’t of that background saying those that are shouldn’t be offended; and non-Native Americans saying they’ll be offended if the name is changed obviously don’t know what “offended” means*).  As hypocritical as this may sound, I will continue to support the team, but I cannot support the name; as treasonous as this may sound, it’s time for the name to be changed.  And, as I’ve said a million times before, I hate the term political correctness: it has nothing to do with politics; it has everything to do with being a decent human being.

In the end, loyalty to a name or a brand gets pushed to the back-burner.  As a fan of the football team, I do miss the camaraderie of singing the fight song, especially during the (few-and-far-between) highs of the season.  If, by some miracle, they are successful in the near future, I will feel awkward celebrating their success while denouncing the name.  But, as a human being, I don't and I won't.  Not one bit. 

*I do realize I’ve opened the door for “Well, the Native Americans who ARE offended if the team changes its name need to be heard, too,” and I get that, but I think the hurt caused by the name is MORE offensive than those upset by the changing of a name.