Blackface to Black Superman

By: Jonathan Seidel

Casting for the wrong roles—women, homosexuals, romans etc.

Cinema has a history of discrimination. While writers would diversify their plot lines directors would not diversify their cast. Having white men black characters as one example. Today the opposite is occurring plot lines are not diversifying while the cast is. An iconically white character is played by a black actor. In order to compensate for old racists the character is changed. This form of compensation for past sins not only muddles the apology but ruins the reputation of non racist writers. 

Shakespeare famously hired men to play women. He needed someone to play the role but women were not allowed by law to entertain in theatre. This was also during Queen Elizabeth’s reign. The monarch, the most powerful woman in the country nay in Europe upheld this traditional norm in her feminist leanings. Shakespeare was not being sexist but following the rules. Was he sexist? Maybe but not because of his casting. Modern moralists look back and cancel Shakespeare for his premodern immorality. Yet unlike Nazism that forced its ideals on the public. This was mutually accepted by both men and women. In marxian terminology the oppressor and the oppressed. 

Branch Ricky’s decision to draft Jackie Robinson is a step down from British norms. The US was imbued with constant racist propaganda. Blacks were inferior to whites and needed to be segregated. The norm was to not play together. While many were indifferent they watched as prejudice persisted in front of their eyes. An institutionalised obstruction emboldened by heroic enforcers. Rickey’s motives may have been selfishly capitalist in nature to win as Robinson was a prolific athlete. Yet his decision ultimately broke the colour barrier. Many were not happy even in the organisation. The norm was broken and it rubbed people the wrong way. The relational attitude was corrupted with an abnormality. A new face in a foreign land was disliked but overtime has gradually compensated itself. MLB maintains a slight majority but NFL and NBA are majority black. Though there may be underlying compensation, the basketball talent is predominately from black players as they dominate the league. 

Professional sports was not a fan of integration and tried to resist change but in time talent spoke for itself. Beginning with Robinson in baseball, Brown in football among others demonstrated the ability for blacks to play alongside whites. Sports progresses along without reverting to the past. The game evolves with the players. There is always cross-generational discussion but there is little attempt to relive the past. The same cannot be said of film adaptation. Movies are all adapted every year with diverse actors. Looking back and shaming friends for no black actors what about the fresh prince where there were no white characters. A bit of a double standard. Nevertheless, it was necessarily racially motivated. Throwing these ideas out there with mere speculation tainted by ideological stipulation is wrong. It is the wrong way to perceive art and entertainment. Not everyone is a boogyman and not everyone is racist.

Attempts to rectify these wrongs with cirrus in iconic films and film adaptations. The recent all female remastered version of ghostbusters hit a snag with terrible reviews because it was more messaging than art. The audience saw through the facade and judged it by its ineptitude. Yet news outlets fuelled the flames by claiming sexism. It must be because the viewership is misogynistic. Though the harshest insults were heralded at comic book fans who were unhappy with the ideological pandering to alter character’s race for messaging purposes. Ironically, it was usually a redhead who was replaced with a black character (Wally West, Iris West, Mary Jane Watson). Fans love the green lantern John Stewart. They do not enjoy their favourite characters being dismantled and then being insulted for their criticism.  

Altering art to compensate for exclusivity is not the answer. Iconic characters emerge and that is great. Whether what occurred in the past was correct or not is irrelevant. Do not remake old art, create new art. John Stewart is a perfect example. Modern Romeo and Juliet outtakes will have a woman to fill the proper role. Pandering only hurts the public’s image of cinema and the constant virtual signalling in a movie. No one wishes to watch a movie that is filled with narcissistic nepotism. When people do not enjoy the movie do not call them out in basic childish ad hominem. Miles Morales as Spiderman has gained a fanbase with reluctancy. As producers continue to create his own narrative away from Peter Parker the more comfortable people will become. It isn’t that he is black but that he is not his own person but a projection of ideologues. 

Black superman is not a new concept. There are black supermen in the comic books but none of them are Cal-El. No one is asking for a white black panther. Take the black supermen from the comic and adapt them from the art not for a political statement. Scientifically, superman could be black from the sun, run a logically sound narrative. Iconic characters leave a special place in people’s hearts but that does not mean that new movies cannot be created. Hell people have a special place for a blue people called the Navi for god sake. Planting roots is not easy but it is possible. John Stewart, Black Panther Blade among others are respected and killed it at the box office. The important point is that much of the reboots whether in comic books or iconic films are pandering to audiences and enticing animosity to a well-intentioned ideal.

A classic rationale for a black superman is for the black community to be represented. The most powerful superhero is black. It is true that most of the popular heroes are white given they were more or less written by Jewish writers projecting a saviour against the Nazis ("S" symbol as hope against the swastika). The writers wrote from their perspective. These heroes are entrenched in the history of the comic book canon. Every kid knows what superman looks like. Throwing a black superman on the big screen may make adults happy but will it have the same affect on the child? While the intention is to feel comfortable and protected, the delta is not necessarily accomplished. To what degree do children actually internalise superman's complexion. No one wonders why superman isn't Jewish. For the child the purpose of the hero is not what he looks like but what he does. It is then beyond his complexion that then signals to the reader of the great prowess of said hero. Fighting for justice instead of apparent representation. It all hinges on do children get the memo or is such ideological bias over their heads. Even if they do understand there is still a problem of messaging and continuity

Gadamer argues that hermeneutics are an internal mechanism that builds upon the past to the future. Legal systems pledge to precedent. Here is a new case, what have past cases said about this situation. The old is not used to articulate the new. Comic books are cemented. Characters branded through magazines and film for the past half century. Switching the complexion of the character does a disservice to that character. It is not that shifting complexion changes the character's behaviour but perception. The new character may be called the hero but this version does not match with the historical records. This hero is dubbed without any linkage. The same story is modified but with a varied cultural centricity. To a degree, writers draw their characters differently and reboots have different characters (3 spidermen). Staying true to the character is necessarily by complexion given its by sight. Skin colour is seen in the embodiment of the character. A Lacanian ascertains the dimmed acceptance due to the absurd characterisation. He says he is superman but he does not look like superman. He is a hoax. The recognition of superman is undermined he is a caricature of the true superman. Black children themselves see a peculiar character playing the true heir and confused who this individual is. 

The character was written a certain way and stamped as fact. This does not mean that a new character cannot take their place. Rewriting old characters with renewed ideas demurs that character's legacy. The effect targets complexion instead of values. The goal of superheroes is their ethical identity not their political positioning. The hero is a statement for societal necessity. Heroes protect. Do not undermine the character by focusing their work away to strange new image. Miles Morales as Spiderman was a good move. Some of the pushback is from conservatives chanting wokeism. Yet even if this true, the storyline is unique and promising. It respects the white Peter Parker and changes the mantle. Spiderman is what is under the hood but it is more than that. The costume changes the environment changes. It is an origin story for a new character. A successful rant for a plausible shift. With the ideological aspect it still exceeds expectations. It is a well written story following a Spiderman's role. Marking the good of the old while showing a new version for the new. 

Fantasy has probably the most ironic setback given its axiomatic diversity. The fantasy realm includes creatures of every mythology in elves dwarfs and orc. Playing politics with this genre is self defeating but when executed turns people off. Identity politics ridicules the one absolutely diversified casting. It is almost out of sheer jealousy. A utopian recommendation that they have yet to achieve. Fantasy is the diversity of monster equality. Able to blend groups from all races. There may be some premodern aspects that may need updating but the casting and screening should revolve around the plot exploring the diversity instead of virtue signalling. Planting a specific vision to make a point. Just tell a compelling story with a diverse cast. It is not that difficult. 

Comic books were designed as fictional messaging. They told stories narrativised to push a vision. Wonder Woman was to demonstrate female capability, Captain America was a pro-war allied forces phenomenon, x-men represented the civil rights persecuted minority, black widow reduced the communist stereotype. Comic books are fiction and they supply a value. This is not virtual signalling or woke. The newer movies make comments and characters breaking the fourth wall. Older movies let the art do the talking. The story itself inspired the idea. Black Widow was gradually accepted not by Spiderman saying anything but by teaming up and her loyalty to protecting people from harm. X-men is a perfect example of narrating the struggle of isolation and prejudice without virtue signalling.

It is quite interesting if these film changes were done twenty years ago. Would there have been backlash? Is the current toxic climate the rationale for the pushback? A good argument against my claim would place superman not only as an alien but also his entire role is to fight for truth, justice and the American way. Making a black superman would actually reinforce these ideas. It is not about race but about values. The same goes for batman and Spiderman. The problem is that such is not the case in this climate. The overwhelming reasoning is for some ideological affirmation. It is for the sake of pandering and concentrating on race even more. It is the inverse of the ideal goal, it does not embolden those values but instead focuses directly on the character's race. A may be this political climate but it also just may be the spontaneous alteration amidst a half century of a specific depiction. 

The greatest irony is the race swapping for redheaded characters. Maybe it is because they are too white. Redheads are a huge minority in the world and are being ousted for political pandering. An even smaller minority is teased out. Yet I do believe somethings are also more complex. The Teen Titans show Starfire was black. The issue would exist if she was white as well. The controversy stems from the character's alien genetics making her skin orange. Gemora played by a black woman in the MCU is accepted since the green alien skin is projected correctly. Mystique played by a white actress in both adaptations is painted blue to signify the character's depiction. The case was more about being true to the material. This not a claim against change, it is a honest representation of the character. The character means something when they are projected on the screen. An alternative portrayal is internalised as a falsehood. Starfire is not Starfire. She is a black Starfire (white Starfire would be the same problem). 

Backlash on race-swapping may be a temporary agitator. In a decade it may not a big deal. Alternatively, the point of race-swapping is ideological. It is not replace for values but replace for complexion. Ironically, there are numerous seminal black characters that have not hit the big screen yet. Static Shock is a perfect example of a show that embedded political messaging. Static's friend Richie's father is quite racist and Static has to come to terms with it. This is pre-ideological era. Not only is a unique black character portrayed but even the messaging is explored without intense rebuttal. This in of itself recognises that the current climate is affirmatively too toxic and difficult to actually make this change. Though personally, this seems more affective given that the character is his own. He is not a race-swap or even a race-apprentice. Static is in his own world as is Luke Cage and Black Lightning. It is these stories that stand tall as isolated in their own right. The stories are internalised because the characters aren't reconned but original. An honesty and a protection of excellence to the reader. No argument just hopefully good story-telling.

Lastly, there is an element that is unfortunate but potentially inevitable. Most classic heroes are white. Written by white writers. Their images entrenched in storylines. The most memorable heroes to date are the redistributed ones with the most fame who happen to be white. Yet black panther did receive incredible notoriety. The Blade franchise was phenomenal. Can Miles Morales make it as well? At least for the former they are original storylines while the latter is a break off. Can Morales escape Peter's shadow? The entire essence of the storyline is to make him his own man. Changes in costume and plot attempt to write him as a different hero. The addition of other Spidermen in the multi-verse sought to legitimise his claim. Yet he is still Spiderman. A role notoriously associated with Peter Parker. Though his mission is to be his own man as long as he wears the suit, he remains a legacy of Parker. Sam Wilson who receives Captain America's shield was applauded as the quintessential apprentice. People were happy with no racial controversy. The question remains is Wilson a placeholder? A great biblical example is Isaac. He takes his father's name as well as his values. The narratives intentionally illustrate Isaac's mimicking of his father's ways to denote his continuation and yet also limit to personhood unlike Jacob who took his own path.

Creating new storylines for the same type of character is a quasi-attempt to race-swap without actually doing so. It predates the present culture as well as following continuity. A character needs to hang up the mantle at some point. Who does he pass it onto? John Stewart is a well regarded hero and yet he is overshadowed by Hal Jordan. I do think that Stewart's usage in the early DC television was accepted even if it was a diversity addition because the character was original in himself. He was part of a legacy of earth lanterns. Yet at times Stewart overshadowed as a replacement for Jordan and if Jordan keeps returning then Stewart is simply a replacement this would work for Gardener as well (who is white). The fact that Robin becomes Nightwing and not batman is more impactful than Terry McGinnis becoming batman in batman beyond. An amazing show but not a long-lasting legacy even if people are waiting on a film adaptation. Some apprentices fade into oblivion others live on but the constant message is that these apprentices are a foil for that character to return. The original heroes never day permanently and thus their presence will always outweigh the apprentice unless the apprentice is somehow written better.

Thus the best case scenario is to either adapt classical black or hispanic characters (Static Shock and Blue Beetle) or to create new characters. There may be some blowback from new characters that this a pandering attempt but comic book lovers want good writing. They are not white exclusivists. I bet many would have been truly annoyed had Shang Chi been played by a white man. What people want is to see their idol or potential idol on the screen. For some good writing and action that portrays the hero's journey sufficiently. The current climate despises the hiring motivations while the possibility for classical and new characters to emerge for minority communities. Do not use old heroes to create a new paradigm. Leave the story and begin a new one. A connective valve but a unique enterprise.      

The Equal Animal Kingdom

By: Jonathan Seidel

Orwellian totalitarian capitalism and socialistic future 

Orwell’s Animal Farm follows a well intentioned and necessary animal revolt against their human master. Creating a new but corrupted society. Analogous to Stalinist Russia which in bad faith pushed the revolution and then betrayed the good people by subjecting to similar evils of the Tzar before him. This story highlights the greedy danger in power hungry elitist revolutionaries. They cleverly manipulate the masses to do their bidding while they grow rich. Yet this has major hellenistic lacing and not the true socialist humanism.

  

The story tells of animals as slaves to their human master. His disinterest prompts them to take matters into their own hands. The animals exile their human master and create a new society. The leaders teach the youngsters and place themselves above the masses. They deceptively control the masses by providing them privileges they did not have before. They switch out the former ruler for their own reign. They create a tribalistic ideology which pronounces themselves over others. A threatening identity that others are trying to overthrow. To steal the freedom given. 

They demonstrate themselves more benevolent and caring than other potentials. They curate a narrative that binds the people to them. The leader’s identical past and early reforms to help. Their deception was never intentional. It emerged as they were placed in the Tzar’s rule. They accumulated the responsibility and thus saw themselves as in the right to take a little extra for themselves. They are doing a service so they deserve more. Recently, a US representative complained she was not making enough money. She was making triple the average citizen. Yet she felt entitled as a representative to more compensation. She is thinking in the capitalist mind that I deserve. Me me me. The correct perspective is doing a job for the people. To be responsible for them. Not to capitalise on a position and whine about insufficiency. 

Many may look at this as human nature. People say communism didn’t work because of human nature. People are greedy. Yet this is current human nature. People only want what they can’t have when the goal is to accumulate every possession known to man. If the goal is personal achievements of course jealousy will wreak havoc. People wish to keep climbing if the peak is absolute freedom. To do as wish with little consequence. The more money and connections the less repudiation. The current red-pilling is to make enough money to eclipse the elites. Yet this just a cop out. Escape and abandon those suffering. What they call leaving the matrix is the mystic who takes his ideas to forest. He no longer will play by society rules so he runs away. He sees society as a failure. There is no way of changing it. The only way is to become like the villain and running away. Gather enough assets to compete with the elites and then live peacefully isolated.

Humans are greedy but not the case of the animal kingdom. They are socialists. They take care of one another and spread the reward. Mice gather babies so if one mother dies, the others will care for her children and wolves travel in packs bringing back food for the group to enjoy. While their is a hierarchy, within in the group there is greater harmony. Human intellect is the single greatest ability. It can create and destroy so easily. Religious mythology analogising human intellect with inferior divine intelligence is a testament to human capacity. Human paranoia and selfish aspirations hunt the collectivist animal. Thinking beyond the circle inspires eclipsing the group. What is better than eclipsing is manipulating them. Maintaining the social ties while deceiving them. A narcissistic proliferation demonstrating a selfish desire to help. A voice of salvation calling to help all the while reaping the profit.

Rationality is dangerous if left unchecked. Recognising otherness by decoding difference is the primal agent to emotional disassociation. The primal intellect reduces the other with emotional insignificance. A lack of introspection and further external indulgence generates the endless gluttonous feeling. The objectification of the world only emboldens this message. Rewarding oneself with materials intensifying desire for accumulating all of the resources in existence. A lack of stoic humility in giving for no reward. Unconditional lending in loving harmony. Materialistic excess is a byproduct of elevating the self in a hedonistic society. Cruelty in the manifestation of deceptive kindness is worse than blunt evil. It tricks the receiver to his ultimate doom never seeing the guise. 

A materialistic perspective is not the only way of relating to society. The corrupted leaders fuel paranoia and self rewarding in materialism. They have swapped out the master to become the new master. Unlike the former master they do not bluntly exclaim themselves to be the master. They are the slow knife that cuts from behind without notice, piercing the deepest. The greatest betrayal vailed. Their own pride exalts its superiority in the form of subjugating the masses to a fixed frame. They only see the good and the bad exposed is quashed. Soviet dominance was materialistic. Stalin’s move was no different than the capitalist elites. The latter remain in the shadows reaping the reward without uttering a word. Stalin ousted himself. The wealthy capitalist are benevolent philanthropists, they only want to give back. The put on a facade for the masses pulling the strings from behind the curtain. 

The cycle is not eternal. The spell can be broken. Yet the masses must awaken from their hypnotic slumber. Pay more attention to the structural links. Much information is hidden from them. Yet critical thinking is a first step in moving in the other direction. Rethinking the war in Afghanistan is a start and the recent resistance to Epstein’s suicide are evident of a certain bunch protesting. It needs to be pounced upon. The government will act without the people’s knowledge. The government will continue to fail transparency conduct but the masses can question its legitimacy. When the public is pulled into a conflict to rethink the idea. The media is imposing a narrative on me, how do I respond. Maybe watch the other side’s take or read a self proclaimed independent journalist or two for more nuance. Nothing as it seems and there is enough evidence to back it up. The elites do not check on one another so public must do so. They must stand up and demand!

Narrow Vision

By: Jonathan Seidel

Carnivores, animal hierarchies and dogs

Humanity does see animals as edible but this is culturally subjective. Animals are placed in a hierarchy of de-animalisation. Dogs are cute and bugs are gross. Some people hate dogs but less people are happy to eat them scorning the Chinese. Those who eat bugs are dehumanised. People like to play with cats but will never eat them. People eat pork but will never play with them. The correlation is interesting, yet it is more ironic the habituated relation constructed.

Edible animals is entirely habituation. Jews are grossed out from pork because it is embedded in their culture. Grasshoppers as well but they are kosher yet still disgusted because it is not normal. Americans detest eating dogs today because they are man’s best friend. They also don’t eat horses because of their generational utility. Americans eat pigs and Chinese eat dogs. Routinely eating animals will lose their weirdness. What is normal is not perceived in the drastic otherness. There is a primitive stereotype on the Chinese by Americans for eating dogs. Evil Chinese eat cute dogs, let’s nuke them. Disgusted by a mere unordinary routine. Fine eating all sorts of animals except those routinely uneaten. 

Societies determine what is permissible to eat and not. A negative society would bemoan eating animals entirely. While vegans are in the minority these days, in time habituated or in an enclosed society it could become more expansive revolting from animal ingestion. The same goes for cannibal groups. The average person cannot comprehend but it is routine in that culture. It is a language game. Anything outside the norm is otherness and scary. Differences emerge over time but the differences becomes ideological variance. The incapacity to eat a human or a dog is relative to the symbiotic nature between nature and nurture. Growing up there was a poisonous feeling to unkosher food but its unpleasant stench diminished with some neurological rethinking. Making excuses for unkosher dairy and then the next step to meat may not have been simple but possible. It is evolutionary but the mind begins to feel differently changing the ingestion. 

Dog may be gross and have nothing to do with prior phobia. Not everything is nutritious to everyone. Yet those squeamish to certain foods are neurologically monitored to dislike a certain food. Think about a dog. A dog is man’s best friend in the american mind. If you cannot eat your friend, you cannot eat a dog. There is no issue with murder but there is with eating dogs. We have become so domesticated to other vices like killing and stealing that it does not deeply bother us. It is not as mentally disheartening than eating dog. How society values its society and how it expresses those values will indeed impact societal views. Whether or not there is an innate or inherited distaste for blood is neutralised with consistent exposure. The relational attitude is normalised with more persistent encountering. Eating dog would be normalised if eaten routinely. The mental block slowly erodes into oblivion. The demotivation forms in an initial resistance. Building up walls to reinforce to no eating dog policy.

This challenges the belief that any vices are axiomatic or simply habituated social constructions. Vices were socially ingrained as methods to avoid societal collapse and maximised human life. They are seen as the divine ethic yet these are mere reinforced intuitions. The rational faculty bolsters the ideal but yet makes changes. Murder is wrong for some but not others. There are exceptions whether through revenge, war, foreigners. The justification is about the relation to the party involved. Habituated to not harm family but not dangerous foreigners. Christians killed Jews not even on clerical orders. Crusaders of their own volition massacred Jewish towns. Their educated contempt manifested in taking revenge for christ. This relational attitude only spread in strategies. Exile, pogroms, blood libels. The sole solution in their mercy was conversion so then the relation altered. He was not a christian no longer acquainted existentially with Jews. The devil sign on his forehand erased. 

It is not changing the rules to fit a narrative. These relational attitudes are evolutionary. They are traumatic avenues that spark a quick intuition to caution. Alerting the individual this is deeply problematic. Each encounter springs a red siren screaming in agony. A hysteria emerges in the mind freezing him altering his mood tremendously. The same can be said of Jews and Germany. For many, saying the word Germany disgusts them. It raises the horrific disaster crumbling his family. Triggered by the notion he refuses to buy any German product. Animosity towards another subject is not necessarily the subject itself but its representation. German cars represent production to exterminate Jews and German people represent Nazis. Institutional education is the genus of the malice endowed on others. The harsher the dialogue as well as a person’s emotional instigation yields phobic clarity. A younger individual with little ties to the travesty finds little issue with Germans. 

Hitler’s dehumanisation of Jews exposed them to harsh conditions. Loaded in cattle cars akin to its animalistic function and funnelled like sheep to the slaughterhouse. They did not simply dehumanise them, they analogised Jews with weak farm animals. The average German citizen even if not a farmer or hunter was aware of cattle’s ineptitude. They followed through on a farming industry with humans. Not even batting an eye. Arendt’s banality of evil has some truth to it. Once the idea is preached consistently in the main media, it takes centerstage in the mind. Propaganda gradually worsening is not caught by the ignorant public. The Nazi brilliance scapegoated Jews. First it blamed them, outcasting them, stealing their land then moving them off then killing them. While many remained silence out of fear. The habituated narrative was the devilish Jew. As the propaganda evolved its periodic development did not phase the citizen. He grew to accept this reality. They deserved it. Those in the language game failed to eclipse the system and relied on the supplied relational image as it swiftly altered in time. 

An evolving narrative is similar to doctoring images. If an individual goes undercover on an assignment. He cannot contact his family. The immediate changes made to the photos are unnoticeable but in time he is an unrecognisable person. A similar example is exercising. The first few days will not see any change but at some point results will show. Not from a single change but consistent changes. It is a slow evolutionary process that drastically alters the original version. Enough exposure engulfed in an echo chamber will come to believe its truth. Politics works this way as well. News networks produce a monolithic perspective that their side is correct. Polarisation is the result of narrow-minded ignorance. Failing to consider the other side. Comfortable with view as the only truth. It has to be. The dread that comes from being wrong is daunting. The fear that the entire world will collapse is phobic but mentally real. Stooped in a monistic attitude enrages otherness. Any alternative is riddled with nonsense. Defensive retaliation and triggered hysteria are common reactions.

Images have a visual impact scarring the eyes but words have a terrible affect as well. Sticks and stones may brake my bones but words will never harm me, but they do severely. Words embody images. Words cater the soul cultivating an image. The crusader attacking the Jew is due to the educational lessons. He never saw Jesus’ death at the hands of Jews. It may never have occurred but the story is so real in its narration that he desires to take revenge. Guns are dangerous more than the image, the word in American society in certain areas is a curse word. A type of it should not be named. In the states guns are associated with school shootings freaking people out. In Israel no one bats an eye and feels safer seeing civilians holstering pistols as a sign of protection. Improper and even devilish in New York unless a police officer who has been given that privilege to protect embedded in youth education. Curse words are bad words while others are dubbed bathroom words. Some are insulting, some are used in an insulting context. Shit, Fuck and Bitch mean objects/action. Yet can be used insultingly. 

On the other hand there are bathroom words that are not considered swear words like penis, pee pee, sex. Profanity is measured in hierarchical structure how they are perceived. Curse words are words used to insult while bathroom words are sexually related words. Yet words like stupid, shut up and idiot are mean words. They are insulting and while a mother will scold her child for saying a mean word to his younger brother she will not wash his mouth out with soap the same way for saying dumbass or asshole. Society regulates certain words to certain categories. In some households they are defended and others show little concern. What many deem inappropriate is a product of habitation not bad mothering. Cunt is really bad in the states but more acceptable in Northern England and normal conversation in Australia. There is a sensitivity in America to the derogatory slur towards woman but is more freely used in other societies. It may have to due with personalities. A more sarcastically dark humoured bunch will enjoy yelling at another laughing. All the while when typed ostriches are used because how dare the word be able to be scene. The image of word itself carries impeccable weight. 

Sceptics who eclipse the situation and perceive difference cannot unsee what they have seen. This is usually in the case of images. The KFC logo is really a big head with a tiny body. Yet even if cannot unsee it you technically can by zooming out. Ambiguous images are those with two possibilities. Seeing a duck and a rabbit can both be seen. They both exist but it depends on where one is looking. Rubin’s Vase projecting a vase and two people facing one another is an illusion whereby both are realised once the second half appears it cannot be unseen. Both still remain. There is a relation to both sides. Interestingly, it is maturity in reflecting on how far we’ve grown. Teenagers laughing at their teacher reading the assigned book aloud reading curse word after curse through the narrative. Smirking at the sexually explicit plot lines. A mature individual habituated to sexual experiences and cursing whether self executed or in the know does not bat an eye. Conservative religious folk will gasp at such literacy. Even though they have matured their lack of exposure and their purity lifestyle is defiled in an immediate traumatic moment. Exposure is the key to normalisation of the ideal.

Transcending emotional ties to ideas is not simple. Even those who realising a new side of things. Teenagers standing up for veganism break from the habituated carnivore norm. Both are emotionally tied to their view. Challenging one another in intellectual debates that are merely straw manning one another never actually trying to understand one another. The only way to recede from emotional output is to be open to any possibility, Do not transition from one idea to another. This does not break the current. The relational attitude is ideologically dogmatic. The religiously laced motivation and universal pride though does not habit the same murderous rage does lower to screaming in childish fits. Apologetically throwing stones at the questioner. The sceptic asks but is riddled with attacks. The defensive mindset is reactionary. People make their ideas their identity. Ideas change with education. Yet this relation is polarised and prevents growth. While one sees an issue one way the other sees it entirety different unable to acknowledge one another disgusted by the possibility of variance. A pluralistic society is theoretically allowed not practically. 

Part of the Process

By: Jonathan Seidel

Wrestling and socialism: predestination and collectivism 

Barthes relates the theatre of wrestling. Wrestling differs from boxing in its entertainment primacy. Wrestling unlike its counterpart sports attempts to achieve a positive result. Players wish to win and stats are everything. This is not the case for wrestling. Wrestling is a spectacle, scripted from the onset. Wrestlers have a role to play. Theatre actors displaying their excellence in entertaining the crowd. The role playing model harkens to ancient antiquity and the marxist ideals.

Sports are democratic. Classically restrictive and conformist. Inside the language game there is much movement. There is a liberation to achieve the greatest peak. Inflating statistics and winning championships primarily fuels the athlete to perform. Players are out to perform to succeed to accomplish. They rack up trophies to gain appreciation. Content creators spend loads of time compiling the excellence of players and their prestige. Constant murmurs about who is the greatest, whether LBJ or MJ, Renaldo or Messi, encompasses the media arena. It is not just analysts and youtubers making countless content on the same issue. Even the players themselves voice their opinions. They wish to gain the respect they believe they deserve. They work tirelessly for fame and fortune. To win at all costs and to be hailed supreme. Those who cop out with “I play for the love of the game” according to Nietzsche is a slavish response. Jealous of the master’s excellence, he alters his confidence to a new mission. Answer deceptively to avoid his true intent.    

Love of the game is a common trope but it is all behind the escalating accomplishments. There is a truth in the highest level of competition but the privileges that accompany the big pay day is a deep aggressive spirit. There is a deep level of competition that like any other job compels outlasting opponents. Besting them adds more fuel to the fire. It is all about climbing the ladder. Whether that is the player’s initial rationale it becomes a revolving lifestyle. Survival in the league is through perpetuated success. As long as results are high, the love for the game is immaterial. It matters little. It may empower production but it is the end not the means that really matter. While these slogans capture fan approval and respect, it is those with heart and also excel that are most noticed. Not being able to achieve the expectations at the end will draw hate and potential firing. The thought doesn’t count insofar as level of playing must be sky-high. 

Stooped in the capitalist market, players compete for their high paid salaries. Players make a half a million plus. With relatively limited roster spots available, securing a spot on a team is difficult. Like any business, if effort is not up to the team’s liking they can drop you from the team. Achieving awards for fame is parcel of the totality of the business. Winning awards attracts more cash like signing bonuses. More awards more notice and more potential money. Attractive offers flood excellent players to show off to inspire their fans to buy the advertised merchandise. Growing influence adds personal prestige but also adds opportunities. It is climbing the ladder in the basketball word and the corporate world. For example, LeBron James’ excellent play on the court got him a higher salary from the team, a shoe deal with nike as well as making profit from other endorsements like AT&T. His influence runs deep into politics as well preaching on twitter to his followers. He is not only a basketball player but an icon. 

For someone like LeBron James, his talent and work ethic ensured his success. He has reaped much reward for his effort. Yet though speculative, what has inspired James to keep buying stock in different sectors and owning different branches? The first answer is because he enjoys it. The second is the ever-growing fame and fortune. This is not to say that James is greedy or a bad person but it does acknowledge the persistent amassing of fortune and expanding influence. Is this so wrong? James has donated more than one hundred million dollars to charity as well as building a school in his hometown. He is nothing short of philanthropic. Playing in the system he still manages to personally give back over the governmental taxation promise. If he is giving back that much, is his three mansions worth a total of sixty million dollars? Additionally, the teams make money from merchandising sponsorships and tickets. The fan gifts him a large portion of this money. 

At the end of the day it is a day in day out competitive business. Wrestling is indeed a competitive business. It is not in the statistics that other sports are. There is a level of performance in the ring. Yet it is more the entertainment. More of an actor than a stockholder. Any actor can be fired for his lacklustre performance but because it is rigged it is playing a role formidably. While LeBron James also technically needs to play a role effectively, that of a superstar ballplayer, it is not in the same realm. Efficiency is obviously important but it is the means in the latter than the result. Wrestling is about collective spirit. Team chemistry and audience fascination. These elements exist in other sports but winning usually tramples them. A player may be problematic but if isn’t truly intolerable and wins then keep him around. There is a point of no return but the primacy is not the teamwork. For wrestling it is. His skills are useless if he cannot work with others. 

Wrestling is a play in stages in real time. Weekly events tell the tale of this journeyman. His popularity is considered and contemplated by the audience for each periodic scene. It gives the audience time to sink into the character’s routine. A live television show where the character is praised or booed. The audience’s engagement fuels the storyline impassioning the plot. The result is not individual accolades but a collectivist dream. The wrestler is not judged by his personal accomplishments but his team work in the overall scheme. Wrestling is still in the capitalist world trying to make money but it is a production for the fans. It is a fan service to enjoy the theatre not to display personal skill. People don’t count numbers but remember events. Recalling experiences in personifying the wrestler’s purpose to the plot. The moment is not at the expense of another as it in sports. Most recall the moment of individual players in their outstanding shots forgetting the defender while the wrestler recalls the match both opponents. 

Moulding an experience that expels the greedy singularity. Those who go off script are fired. Individuality is toxic. The team effort to create a beautiful storyline carries the crowd with them. The audience is part of the experience. They observe but cheer and jeer at the wrestlers. They demonstrate their praise or contempt for the story. The dialectical order portrayed is a cinematic fashioning. Fans disliking ball players is from their troubling incidents with teammates. The media storm that capitalises on useless commentary. Wrestling creates its own drama. It does add a second layer to discuss afterwards to orchestrate its preeminent disclosure. Wrestling is a participatory climate. An engaging manifestation of simple cohesion between the audience and professionals. A linkage in a mutual experience. The ring is the centre of the action but the stadium is a participant in the plot. The audience’s voice is central to the journey empowering the the thematic storyline. 

Its unique standard in the all inclusive experience entails a deep encounter between wrestler and audience. They are not mere bystanders but coaches in the corner. The audience recognises the fiction before their eyes but to them it becomes more real. The professional excellence pulls off a beautiful artistry of scripted acting without technological guises used in cinema. Wrestlers are placed on the spot to exact their role. They are playing for the audience. In a sense it follows the colosseum model of becoming a fan favourite. There is a measure of individualism. That autonomy is working hard and working well. Showing the audience you belong and completing the scenes properly with coworkers. The goal is to finish the scene with positive reaction from the audience. The good/evil binary inevitably will have the protagonist meet the antagonist. Cheering and jeering is the monument of respect to the antagonist’s successes and failures. Even the youth can see their importance to the plot. Getting the crowd to dislike without disregard is a successful villain. 

Values emanate from the plot. Its themes point to an impactful realisation. The storyline is educational in its action packed thriller. Its fiction purports a realism unable to attained in daily life. A spectacle of drastic messaging. There is a purpose for each side to persistently develop. A group effort for the betterment. Rejuvenating the merit in the fight. Characters play various roles as they fight in the ring. The drama exudes and audiences marvel. Wrestling is more akin to a family. The entertainment is a group effort. Wrestlers need to key in on their roles with little arrogance. Their pride will be their downfall. It is the humility of the group and collective innovation that empowers the impact of the plot and its life messaging. A role is enshrined to a specific character to act in a specific way, for a sequence to play out accordingly. It is not up to chance but sketched out in harmonious revelation. Wrestlers may play characters morally grey but it is their commitment to their craft and ensuring their excellence in their role. They are positional pawns to create majestic mastery.