There are two types of people in the world: Thinkers and Believers.
To my overseas readers: If you’re ever struggling to understand why Americans behave like we do, it’s primarily because our national psyche is fundamentally schizophrenic – we’re a nation born in bottom-against-top revolution, and we still haven’t quite figured out how to reconcile our self-image (“scrappy underdog”) with our post-WWII “Superpower” status.
You can see this divided-mindset in the platform of the Republican Party as embodied (this week, anyway) by Mitt Romney; which bases it’s political appeal entirely on telling white heterosexual Christian men – the least oppressed, most culturally-dominant, most unduly-priviliged class of human beings ever to walk the Earth – that other types of people becoming their social/cultural equals or no longer seeing their culture held as the only or most important qualify as acts of oppression against them.
If you’ve got cable, you’ve probably seen the trailers for “Last Ounce of Courage” and divined that it’s a kind of sappy-looking family movie about the surviving relatives of a dead veteran (angsty teen son and aging-biker grandfather, primarily) getting their shit back together to fight some kind of local corruption. Well… those are the general-release “stealth” trailers – designed to make it look like a real movie when it’s actually a Christian-Right propaganda piece. Here’s the REAL trailer, in which we learn that the evil our heroes are fighting is one of the favorite boogeymen of make-believe oppression: “The War on Christmas.”
I for one can’t wait for the innevitable scene where assholes who insist on barking “MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!” back at anyone (particularly service employees) who dares to wish them “Happy Holidays” are lionized like they were freaking’ MLK…
Speaking of which, gotta appreciate that they went all-out with “Sinister Black Politician” as the leader of the Christianity-smashing efforts – I can’t imagine who THAT’S supposed to remind me of. I also love the little dipshit onstage holding up the American Flag in the middle of a High School Nativity play: A more perfect symbol of present-day religious conservatism I couldn’t have imagined.
Film opens September 14th – unsurprisingly, it doesn’t seem to be screening for us godless round-Earth-believin’ science-lovin’ critic types. Ah, well.
MOVIEBOB CENTRAL 
Also, Americans, you really need to learn your own history. No one other than George Washington fought a War on Christmas, literally. Instead of spending Christmas Day thinking about the “reason for the season”, he marched his men out in a blizzard and crossed the Delaware.
@ Anonymous 4:17:
Did…did he drape an American flag over his motorcycle as a dust cover?
Do you ever notice that self-identified hyper-patriots always show the biggest contempt for national symbols?
The United States Flag: Federal Law Relating to Display and Associated Questions:
7. Position and Manner of Display.
(b) The flag should not be draped over the hood, top, sides, or back of a vehicle or of a railroad train or a boat. When the flag is displayed on a motorcar, the staff
should be fixed firmly to the chassis or clamped to the right fender.
LikeLike
Wow, this movie looks horrible. Not only because the premise is ridiculous, but because it looks horrifically cheap. Seriously, I thought it was a Lifetime movie the first time I saw the trailer on TV.
As for the subject matter, I'm a Christian, but I don't think there's any “War on Christmas.” Even if there were, it certainly wouldn't stop me from celebrating it.
Switching topics, I really want to see more cheetah robots. 'Nuff said.
LikeLike
It's entirely possible I simply have my head up my own ass on this issue but I spent most of this trailer wondering what the hell the guy was talking about.
Seriously, what is he talking about? Specifically.
-Where is the bible outlawed? I know of no public school that prohibits students from having a bible. Is that a private school? If so, why are your kids going there?
-“Freedom and taking back what was stolen from us.” Huh? What the hell are you talking about?
-Where the hell is Christmas a crime?
-“Our rights are being destroyed, perhaps forever.” What rights?
-“Our freedoms are being taken away from us, one by one.” What freedoms?
-“We can't let the enemy take one more inch…” What enemy? What inch?
What the hell is the conflict in this movie?!
LikeLike
@Andrew Eisen
Many people like to feel outraged, or even victimized. It makes them feel powerful, oddly enough, and united in a common struggle. You can sell a population – especially an insecure one – on the idea that some group out there is trying to destroy their values, and they'll take you seriously. They'll close ranks, and they'll feel like part of a group, which will make them feel bigger than if they were just their lonely selves, and above all, they'll feel righteous and morally superior in the face of a malicious enemy with antithetical values.
There's no reason why American Christians should feel persecuted. 98-99% of all politicians are Christians (and they feel very free in expressing it), and Christians dominate the economic sphere and the military. The most insecure, xenophobic Christians tend to live in parts of the country that are almost devoid of any other religion (which is standard for any xenophobic group), namely rural areas. People who aren't exposed to other peoples or beliefs are generally much easier to scare with some boogeyman than are people who actually know other peoples and can see that they're regular folks like them.
Political leaders love being able to exploit this fear, so they play it up. It's really easy too. “Some clerk at the post office said 'Happy Holidays' to me yesterday. What the hell's going on here? December is Christmas, it was Christmas when I was a kid, and it's always going to be Christmas to me. I guess I'm just a traditional guy that way. So why are THEY saying 'Happy Holidays”? Are THEY not Christian? Are THEY trying to take Christmas away from us? And take it from OUR children too? I don't know why else THEY'd be doing that unless THEY hated Christmas. How dare THEY!!! THEY're trying to destroy something WE love, and trying to force THEIR values on OUR children. Shame on them! Vote for me, and I'm going to make sure we make Christmas the official religion, and THEY have to accept that. WE shouldn't have to tolerate this. Just forget about that bribery thing from last year. And that gay airport thing. I'm a good Christian. You can tell because I'm making a really big deal about this. I'm just a simple small-town family man who wants to protect Christmas for our children. And I guess my opponent just doesn't understand that.”
LikeLike
Seriously? This is a real movie? *Facepalm* It looks like a direct to video movie made in the 80s.
LikeLike
This is one of those topics on which there isn't much room for debate. Christians pretending that they're being victimized are being douchebags. White people, and men, and Christians, possess a number of privileges that other people don't, and if you don't know that, you're either a child or willfully ignorant. The people making this movie are either cynical assholes looking to make a buck or sincere idiots looking to make a difference. Gross.
LikeLike
BTW Bob, you're a believer also. It's just that your beliefs aren't motivated by religion, but by ego and narcissism.
LikeLike
I'm still trying to figure out why Fred “the hammer” Williamson is in this, is he really that desperate for work.
But I do think Bob, needs to lay off the political rants on his movie site.
LikeLike
Yay, James found his password. Clap… clap… clap…
LikeLike
Folks, the tagline under the banner reads “Film. Gaming. Politics.” If that doesn't adequately spell out the subject matter of this blog, then nothing else ever will. Stop saying that he needs to layoff politics because this is supposed to be a movie site.
And may I say, what may seem like ego to some is probably nothing more than dismissal of the American religious right which by now has become a parody of itself. So even though I may not agree with Bob much of the time, I still have to say: Right on Bob, write on.
LikeLike
wait, I don't recall seeing a nativity play in that trailer. Time-marker, anybody? I'm curious to know what Bob was talking about when he made the comparison.
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
Sorry I'm a little late to the party. Here's my 2 cents so far.
1. It doesn't matter that this is a website you like to come to. This is first, and foremost, Bob's PERSONAL blog, and he can say whatever the hell he wants regardless of how relevant you think it is.
2. Regardless of my first point, keep in mind that people also have the freedom to come here and disagree if they want to, until such a time that Bob declares his blog a “safe space” from dissent. This point is being made in response to all the whiners that say things like “why do you come here just to disagree?”
3. I agree with Almighty Narf to a certain extent regarding the subject of empirical evidence. More importantly, evidence needs to be statistically significant. For example, there was an argument about income disparity. Were the incomes within one standard deviation of eachother? What was the margin of error, etc… If you're gonna argue statistics, at least do it right.
4. Check out 1:44 of the video. So he's a pharmacist? How much do you wanna bet there's a scene where he becomes a “hero” after refusing to sell birth control to somebody??
5. I think there should be an addendum to Godwin's Law that states “the first person who accuses his opponent of being mad or butthurt loses by default”
see: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Internet_law
LikeLike
I just don't think people should get the benefit of the doubt indefinitely. For example, the religious right is simply a bad group of people who want bad things so that America can be more bad. There's nothing deep to think about here – if they like it, you should assume there's something wrong, automatically, even if they say they want a chocolate ice cream and blowjob appreciation day. No credibility. Assume the worst, always.a
LikeLike
Sorry it's been a few days. Very busy time of year for catering. I'll try to hit some of the more interesting points.
@ Jim … and several others, I guess
Ok, I think we need to clarify “privilege” here.
As far as I understand it, white privilege (and male privilege, but I'm going to focus on race for the moment) asserts that in an other-wise identical situation, a white person would be at more of an advantage than a non-white person. So, we're not talking about how a white ivy-league business man would have more privilege than a non-white high-school educated factory worker… The assertion is that a white ivy-league business man would be more privileged than a non white ivy-league business man, that a white high-school educated factory worker would be more privileged than a non-white high-school educated factory worker.
I'm counter-arguing that when you actually compare apples to apples like that, it doesn't show that whites are in any way inherently privileged over all non-whites races.
“Well, having rich parents to pay for your schooling sure helps.”
Which is “wealth privilege”. And, sure… that exists. But, you know what?
MOST WHITE PEOPLE AREN'T WEALTHY!
There are more white poverty stricken or unemployed people than every other race combined.
Don't project the privilege you get from being wealthy onto me just because we happen to have the same skin color. I'm lower-middle class, and so were my parents, and so were my grand-parents. We're about as fucking far from the privilege of wealth as anyone.
LikeLike
@ biomechanical923
“5. I think there should be an addendum to Godwin's Law that states “the first person who accuses his opponent of being mad or butthurt loses by default” “
That more or less falls under “Danth's Law”.
LikeLike
Would really wish the kinds of people promoting this video would stop making people like me look bad.
And as far as privilege etc goes, as far as I've seen I haven't noticed “white privilege” in the sense that ceteris paribus whites have more privilege than other races in terms of seeking employment, their income, etc. Not all minorities are poor and not all white people are rich (I can personally attest to that one) and vice versa.
Now do people exist that treat others different based on race and gender? Yes. Do these people affect society greatly? I wouldn't know, because I haven't met very many people like that and if I have I disassociate myself from them.
Could things be better? Yes. But things are not as bad as they used to be, and white people are certainly not being “oppressed”.
The only area that I have personal experience with that might have some issue of racial equality is applying to college, where the general consensus from my friends is that racial minorities other than Asians have a greater chance of getting into college than Asians or whites. I don't have conclusive evidence for this though, so I'm skeptical of the idea.
LikeLike
With these sorts of movies, I always end up wondering how sincere the team behind them are being. On one hand, they could be sincere idiots, pounding their chests without the slightest sense of self-awareness. On the other, they're cynical, cunning types who are out to profit from prevailing anxieties.
It's like a really scummy version of Poe's law, and I don't know which concerns me more; moronic and well-meaning, or smart and exploitative.
LikeLike
@ TheAlmightyNarf
That's not what is meant by the term “white privilege”. The term just refers to the various advantages being white brings in a society that should treat people equally. For example, a white guy in the US can be pulled over by the cops, and never have to worry that it was because of his skin colour. He can be late, and not have it associated with his race. He can turn on a tv, and see diverse and plentiful representations of his race. Just check online for “white privilege checklists” for many more examples. There are US christian and male privilege checklists too.
NB, note that these lists aren't out to blame white people, they're just there to point out their advantages for the sake of greater self-awareness.
LikeLike
Hey guys hold up. Was that…Fred Williamson? What the hell, guess he needs the money.
LikeLike
@maninahat
But you're falsely assuming that all white people HAVE privileges, and furthermore, I think you're grossly overestimating those advantages (if any exist).
I'm a white man, and I've been pulled over by the cops whist driving home from work, multiple times, just so they could ask me “What the fuck are you doing out at 3AM?” So I really think that has nothing to do with race, and more to do with cops being assholes trying to play “gotcha” at 3AM.
Insisting that “life is automatically better for you, because you're white / male / cis” is only done by ignoring, discrediting, and marginalizing all of the evidence to the contrary. (Ceteris Paribus, of course)
LikeLike
@ maninahat
See, all those fall into the “unquantifiable” and “unfalsifiable” thing I was talking about back in my original post… Can you actually show me exactly how more often non-whites are pulled over specifically for racial reasons than whites? And, assuming no racial bias, by shear random selection about 75% of people on TV would be white… is it statistically more than that? Is there any empirical evidence for any of this?
LikeLike
Playing the victim is over rated. Typically when I have been pulled over, it's because I have been doing something dumb. Like speeding.
LikeLike
@ biomechanical
You kind of missed the point of what I was saying. White Americans who have been stopped by police, can be safe in the knowledge that their ethnicity played no part in the reason for why they were stopped (much like yourself). This is a society in which blacks and muslims are seen as “suspicious”, for literally no reason other than being black or muslim. It is a privilege to not be stereotyped in such a manner.
@ TheAlmightyNarf
“Can you actually show me exactly how more often non-whites are pulled over specifically for racial reasons than whites?”
Let me guess. If I can't show this highly specific study, you won't entertain the posibility that I might be right. Yes?
What I am saying is falsifiable. The statement “white Americans don't have to worry about racial profiling” can most certainly be disproved. But you seem quite willing to handwave the subtleties of racial prejudice, just as long as there is a lack of data. A hypothesis that hasn't been tested is not automatically invalidated. You're not being empirical, you're being dismissive.
LikeLike
@maninahat
“White Americans who have been stopped by police, can be safe in the knowledge that their ethnicity played no part in the reason for why they were stopped (much like yourself). This is a society in which blacks and muslims are seen as “suspicious”, for literally no reason other than being black or muslim.“
You kind of missed the point that you have no way of knowing whether “profiling” is based on race or not, because there's no empirical evidence to suggest that it is.
This reminds me of some reverse version of the XKCD comic.
http://xkcd.com/385/
So if a cop pulls ME over at 3AM, only to ask what I'm doing… its because cops are just assholes like that.
But if a cop pulls over somebody else at 3AM to ask what they're doing, and that person just happens to be non-white… its because cops are racists, not assholes?
This ridiculous double standard does nothing except perpetuate a culture of perceived victimhood.
LikeLike
@ maninahat
Well, the obvious question would be… Why on Earth shouldn't I just dismiss it? To be completely frank, burden of proof is not on the skeptic. There's simply no reason for me to just accept that “white privilege” exists with out hard evidence supporting it.
If there really is a problem there, we should be doing everything we can to understand exactly what the problem is, exactly what the symptoms are, and exactly what the causes are so that we can make a concerted effort to solve it. But, none of the “symptoms” (that can be shown to actually exist) seem to be directly linked to race, and all the “causes” are just convenient racist stereotypes.
I'm becoming increasingly convinced that there simply isn't anything there.
LikeLike
@ TheAlmightyNarf
A hypothesis begins with an observation – you yourself have probably seen plenty of news stories on controversial cases of racial profiling. That is a leaping off point for people to discuss the possibility of wider spread racism. Knowing that individual examples exist, it is foolish and unscientific to then dismiss the possibility of it being a wider issue, even if we haven't yet studied it extensively.
That said, there are immediate ways to prove some subtle forms of racial bias. Here is a thing you can actually try out yourself. Go on a stock photo website (such as istockphoto.com) and do searches for “man singing” or “person posing” or whatever. In the descriptions and tags of the images that come up, you might notice a peculiar pattern. With photos of white people, the descriptions will simply say things like “man singing into mic” or “woman dancing in street”. But when it is of a non-white person, the description more often tends to say things like “African American woman singing” or “Asian man smiling”. Apparently, whiteness is taken for granted whereas non-white ethnicities are duly noted.
Moviebob once even brought this up on his other blog; the idea that white people are (subconciously) depicted as a tabula rasa, even though that shouldn't be the case. There might not be any real harm in omiting the word “caucasian” from a description of a snow boarder, but that's the perfidity of such subtleties; in a society that considers its people to be equal, why is this quiet racial bias still happening? Does it exist else where? And what do the sum of these elements add up to?
LikeLike
@maninahat
Three things:
1. “Whiteness” is not an actual thing. A hundred years ago, nobody considered Irish, Italian, or Jewish people as “white” now, even many Latinos are self-identifying as “white”, so you're complaining about the privileges of a group that doesn't actually exist, or at least doesn't have any clear, universal definition of what it means to be in that group.
2. I google image searched “singing” and “dancing”. The ethnicities of the people pictured in the results were incredibly diverse (although I'm not sure why you're concerned about such an absurd criteria anyway), so your complaint that everybody sees “white” as the “vanilla” flavor is outdated at best, and biased at worst, especially considering that nobody makes these complaints in other countries. I'm sure that Japan has more Japanese news anchors, and Kenya has more black news anchors, but we don't run around calling them a bunch of racists for it, or whine about “microaggressions” or any other things that Americans are so fat and happy that they have time to worry about.
3. We, (“we” meaning people who don't buy into the concept of race-shaming “whiteness”, a diverse group of people who don't even share a skin color, and may or may not even come of some European descent), we are not the ones making racial distinctions here, you are. Before you start throwing around accusations of “privilege” (as if the people that you arbitrarily categorize as “white” automatically have lives that are more awesome than those of their “non-white” countrymen), maybe you should stop and think about the paternalistic “white-man's burden” bullshit that your feminist, pseudo-marxist indontrinators are pulling on you by suggesting that people of darker skin colors somehow have less moral agency, and need some nanny state to protect their interests from the boogeyman of “white privilege”.
It's 2012, and like it or not, this is a post-racial society. You can point at all the Zimmerman's you want to, and all I see is the death throes of an angry, old, dying ideology by angry, old, dying men.
The world gets better as old generations of voters die.
LikeLike
I think what's the most hilarious thing of all is that both ratings and comments were disabled.
But, uh, yeah, some people…
Personally, I feel like saying Merry Christmas, not so much because I feel oppressed (Heaven forbid), but because I grew up a certain way, and it feels weird to just say Happy Holidays instead. Still, I respect people of other beliefs, and, you know, spirit of the season and all that.
LikeLike
@ biomechanical
1. “Whiteness” is a colloquialism, but I'm sure you could figure out what it means for yourself.
2. I didn't tell you to use google. I said stock image websites. Try again.
3. If you hold off with the pigeon holing for a while, you might actually hear what I'm saying. “White people have privileges” doesn't mean “white people always have the bestest lives”.
You think America is as post racial society, as though racism isn't a serious issue anymore. Huh. Goodbye.
LikeLike
Maninahat:
Location: Yorkshire.
Well that certainly explains a lot. You've had the “atone for your ancestor's sins” Liberal guilt bullshit shoved down your throat by teachers since the day you were born. My apologies.
http://www.lifelineexpedition.co.uk
LikeLike
@ mostly Narf
I don't think anyone is/was arguing that this discussion is about someones skin pigment giving them some immediate advantage over someone else with the exact same circumstances (save their ethnicity being the only variable).
However people who happen to have access to these other advantages (wealth/education) have a stronger likelihood of being white.
I feel we can extend the term privilege to mean ” people who haven't had national or local government legislation specifically leveled against them or that happens to negatively impact their ethnicity or cultural group disproportionately”
I think that's probably what we're talking about.
LikeLike