South Africa's 'virgin bursaries' ruled unconstitutional

A scheme offering university scholarships to young South African women who remain virgins is unconstitutional, the country’s commission for gender equality has ruled.

The “maidens’ bursaries” offered by a state official triggered a nationwide debate in January, with critics calling the scheme’s emphasis on virginity outdated and traditionalists saying it would help preserve African culture.

On Friday, the commission said the programme discriminated against women because male students were not subjected to the same tests. “Any funding by an organ of state based on a woman’s sexuality perpetuates patriarchy and inequality in South Africa,” it said.

Rights groups applauded the ruling. “It is not the cultural practice that is the problem here; it is the allocation of state funds on the basis of girls’ sexuality that violates the constitutional protection to equality, dignity and privacy,” said Sanja Bornman at the Lawyers for Human Rights campaign group.

Recipients of the scholarships, which were offered only to women, were required to undergo virginity testing each time they returned home for holidays, and could lose their bursary if it was determined that they had engaged in sexual activity.

Dudu Mazibuko, the mayor of the Uthukela district of KwaZulu-Natal, who initiated the programme, said in January it would help reduce teenage pregnancy and the spread of HIV/Aids as well as widening job opportunities for women in her small municipality in KwaZulu-Natal province.

Mazibuko, a member of the ruling African National Congress, argued there was already a strong culture of virginity testing in the eastern coastal province. But gender activists and some political parties condemned the practice, with the Economic Freedom Fighters opposition party describing it as “patriarchal and anti-women”.

Response

This article thoroughly summarizes the conclusion that the South-African commission has made towards the ‘South African virgin bursaries’- a scholarship offered to women who choose to abstain from any sexual practices while at university. The South-African commission deemed it unconstitutional because it discriminated against men and it ‘violates the constitutional protection to equality, dignity and privacy,”. I fully agree with the conclusion that the commission has ordained because I see how it discriminates against men, since they are not offered such a scholarship and I also see their point on the ‘ allocation of state funds on the basis of girls’ sexuality’ as quite unpolitical.

Many traditionalists think that it would be good in terms of preserving ‘African culture’ but that is also invalid because African culture is very diverse and not every culture has the notion of virginity, in fact many times the opposite. As for the health aspect of it, I do realize how it would be beneficial in reducing teenage pregnancy and the risk of HIV/AIDS. But, the initiative of providing scholarships is creating yet another problem of whether it is moral, discriminatory or inappropriate. At the same time, I do applaud Dudu Mazibuko, the mayor of the Uthukela district of KwaZulu-Natal, who initiated the programme, since it is rare to see someone who would come up with a solution to reduce teenage pregnancy and the risk of HIV/AIDS .The author showed no obvious bias, he presented both the commission’s response and Mazibuko’s response to the situation clearly.

Works Cited

"South Africa's 'virgin Bursaries' Ruled Unconstitutional." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 17 June 2016. Web. 20 June 2016.

The ‘three black teenagers’ search shows it is society, not Google, that is racist

This week Twitter user Kabir Alli posted a video of him carrying out two specific searches on Google. The search for “three white teenagers” produced smiling and happy generic images of white teenagers, while the search for “three black teenagers” produced some generic happy images too – alongside far too many mug shots and what could be perceived as negative images of black teenagers. The video of the search was put up without any explanation, and people predictably reacted emotively; it’s been shared more than 60,000 times. It brought back an internet meme I debunked back in March this year, in which, on the basis of such search results, people on social media called Google “racist”

'Three black teenagers': anger as Google image search shows police mugshots.

The outrage towards Google as a result of those searches makes sense if a person isn’t aware of the nature of search engine optimisation (SEO), algorithms, alt tagging and stock photography.But once you have that knowledge, it enables you to direct your outrage more accurately. In short, Google doesn’t produce or tag the images themselves. Google is a search engine; search engines collect data from the internet. The most popular and most accurate search results make their way to the top. Websites and companies use SEO to get their images, products and articles to the top of the search engine. So you, the viewer, can see them.

Alt tags are the descriptive words attached to an image or article by its producer, ie, a human, and Google uses these alt tags to bring you “accurate” results. For this particular search the images that appear tend to come from two sources: stock photography and news sites.

Stock photography involves a photographer taking generic images of models and then tagging the images in order to sell them to advertising companies. Black people make up 13% of the US population and 3% of the British population. That means there are far more white people in each population, which means far more companies potentially looking to buy images of smiling white teens. The demographic breakdown of society isn’t, in itself, racist. However, the fact that companies don’t think white people would buy their products if they had black models advertising them seems like a reflection of society’s prejudices. For instance, when the US clothing brand Old Navy used an interracial family in its advertising, it was bombarded with racist tweets.

Whenever a news site publishes an article writers will describe the pictures in the caption and alt text, and these news pictures form the source of many of the “negative” images and mugshots that appear. So, if a story is about a white or black teenager committing a crime the image which accompanies it may well be associated with the phrase “black/white teenager”.

News organisations want page views, and sadly many see the promotion of fear as a great way to reach a big audience. In western countries one of the fears some seek to exploit is the perception of black men as “dangerous”. This perception is evident if you compare the media’s depiction of young black men Tamir Rice and Trayvon Martin, who were 12 and 17 respectively when they were shot dead, and that of Brock Turner, 20, who has just been convicted of sexual assault. The two black teenagers were depicted as criminals and their deaths were blamed on themselves. This narrative was supported by images chosen to portray them with the “young black thug” stereotype. Turner has been depicted as the wholesome white swimming star with a bright future ahead of him – except for the moment he decided to try to rape an unconscious woman. The media portrayed him with a smiling college photo rather than his mugshot.

A study by the US campaign group Color of Change found that black people account for 51% of those arrested for violent crime in New York City. However, the arrests of black people receive 75% of the news coverage. Why? Because a calculation has been made – even if subconsciously or inadvertently – that these stories are of particular interest to a news audience.

So, is Google racist? No. But society is still racist. Not in the same way as the obvious and profound segregation seen in the US before the civil rights movement. But in more subtle, insidious ways, manifested through advertising, the media, film and police.

We have to accept that computers and search engines do not think for themselves. They are a reflection of their creators, and in the case of search engines, a reflection of those who use them – us. Negative images of black teenagers aren’t at the top of the search results because Google is racist, but because society reflects our institutional and subconscious prejudices.

If people want to see positive images of black young people they are going to have to start writing, searching, reading and sharing them. This is the only way to change the negative perception of black teenagers, and black people.

Response: 

This article is basically talking about how Google is deemed racist after someone posted a video of a google search that he did as he compared the images that pop up when he typed 'three black teenagers' vs 'three white teenagers'. Upon doing this Google search-- mugshots of three angry black people where revealed while the white people picture were three happy looking teenagers. The article clearly explains that Google itself is just a search engine and therefore picks up on what people post the most; which is whites as happy and successful and blacks as criminals and so society should be blamed for being racist.

 In my opinion the author makes an excellent point, however, I still question whether Google is racist because there are several success stories of black people, maybe it could be because Google is an American company and as mentioned the white population is larger. But, Google is also a worldwide company and I don't see how they can blame it on society when they could easily use a filter to present more accurate information. And along with that, besides the stereotypical and racial slur condemning  blacks as criminals there are other, if you will, positive stereotypes that could have been portrayed such as black people and athleticism. 

The author, Antoine Allen is clearly biased towards Google because he mentions in a negative tone how the video was posted 'without any explanation' and he consistently defends Google saying that it only a search engine that cannot think for itself. However,I would be curious about that remark since Google has no problem remembering random holiday dates, and adding interesting facts for all its followers to be distracted by when the Google tab is opened. On the other hand, I also wonder why anyone would waste their time posting the video of such a controversial google search when it is quite obvious that all societies consist of racism and hence should not be shocking to public to view tan criticize it mercilessly.

Works Cited

Allen, Antoine. "The 'three Black Teenagers' Search Shows It Is Society, Not Google, That Is Racist | Antoine Allen." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 10 June 2016. Web. 13 June 2016.

Donald Trump accused of 'hypocricy' over twitter tribute to Muhammad Ali

Donald Trump has been accused of “hypocrisy” for his tributes to Muhammad Al, as Bernie Sanders criticised those who praise the boxing legend while being "prejudiced against Muslims in this country".

After publically calling for all Muslims to be banned from entering the US, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate sparked a political row by tweeting: “Muhammad Ali is dead at 74! A truly great champion and a wonderful guy. He will be missed by all!”

Mr Trump and Ali had a relationship going back at least 35 years, with Ali attending the businessman’s second wedding in 2005, and their paths crossed at countless charity events.

Asked about the statement on Saturday, Mr Trump said he did not “believe that was about me”. “He never mentioned the name or anything like that,” he said, adding that if it were about him, Ali “would have mentioned the name”.

Adding to his online tribute, Mr Trump said of Ali: “He was two people. In the ring, he was fierce, and outside of the ring, he was one of the nicest guys you could ever meet.” He added that he was an “amazing poet”, “so generous”, and a “terrific guy”.

Nonetheless, followers on Twitter were quick to contrast Ali’s devotion to Islam with Mr Trump’s ban on Muslims.

David Hobby asked if Ali would have received a “special exemption from your Muslim ban” – like the one Mr Trump offered to Sadiq Khan upon his election as London Mayor.

And the comedian Brian Gaar said, simply, “[Donald Trump], you are the epitome of everything he despised.”

Others pointed to a tweet Mr Trump posted in the wake of a speech by Barack Obama on the San Bernardino shootings. In it, the businessman appeared to suggest he wasn’t aware of any Muslim “sport heroes”.

The President had urged people in the US to rise above an Islamaphobic reaction to the terrorist incident saying “Muslims-Americans are our friends, neighbours and sports heroes”.

Mr Trump reacted: “Obama said in his speech that Muslims are our sports heroes. What sport is he talking about, and who? Is Obama profiling?

Mr Sanders, who still entertains hopes of being the presidential rival opposite Mr Trump, explicitly called out those who praise Ali while condemning Muslims.

He said in an LA press conference: "I’ve been all over this country and I’m talking to Muslim people who say, ‘You know, Bernie, our kids are now afraid.’

"I say to those people, one of the great American heroes in modern American history was Muhammad Ali, a very proud Muslim.

He added: "Don’t tell me how much you love Muhammad Ali and yet you’re going to be prejudiced against Muslims in this country."

Responding to Mr Trump on Twitter, Sam Heughan suggested that maybe Ali “would not be allowed in the country under your proposals”.

Again speaking on Saturday, Mr Trump said the post did not mean he was unaware of any Muslim sports stars.

“I know who they are. I mean, look, Muhammad Ali is somebody that I’ve liked for a long time — and I know he’s Muslim.

“All I’m saying is, ‘I’d like [Obama] to name them because I agree there are some. That’s not a knock by any stretch of the imagination.’

                                                        Works Cited

              Withnall, Adam. "Donald Trump Accused of 'hypocrisy' over Twitter Tribute to Muhammad Ali." The Independent. Independent Digital News and Media, 6 June 2016. Web. 08 June 2016.                                                                                        

                                                         Response

  This article is talking about Donald Trump’s tribute to Muhammad Ali and his xenophobic attitude towards Muslims. Donald Trump is known for his very blunt and racist comments towards the ‘diverse America’ and yet trying to gain popularity at the same time; in this case people have seen the contradiction in his statements after he posted on Twitter his condolences to Ali stating him as ‘truly a great champion’ and a ‘terrific guy’. It brought to light his Muslim ban and questioned whether Ali was exempt from his Islamophobia tendencies. Along with that Donald Trump stated that Muslims can never be ‘sport heroes’ and when questioned about Ali, he could only reply that Ali was a good friend and he didn’t include him in the statement that he had originally made, “All I’m saying is, ‘I’d like [Obama] to name them because I agree there are some. That’s not a knock by any stretch of the imagination.’ In my opinion, this is a foreshadow of what it would be like to have Donald Trump as president—endlessly contradicting himself and stirring confusion and anger in people’s minds. I think it was wrong of him to make such harsh and xenophobic comments towards the Muslim religion and the people definitely have a right to be angry. The author showed little to no bias, and it was very well-written.

Israel jails Palestinian beautician over Facebook post

Bethlehem, occupied West Bank - As uniformed men burst through her front gate last month, Nidal Atwan first thought they had come to her Bethlehem-area home to arrest her 16-year-old son, Mohammed.

"It was two o'clock in the morning. If you saw the number of military jeeps, you'd think Osama bin Laden was in the neighbourhood," recalled Nidal's husband, Yousef.

Majd, a makeup artist, has a passion for bold hair colours and crystal-enhanced manicures [Photo courtesy of Nidal Atwan]

To their surprise, soldiers pulled Nidal aside and asked after the whereabouts of her 22-year-old daughter, Majd, a makeup artist with a passion for bold hair colours and crystal-enhanced manicures.

In disbelief, Nidal asked the commander to show her the warrant, which stated that Majd was wanted on incitement charges over posts made on social media. "I was shocked and furious," Nidal told Al Jazeera.

"It struck me immediately, once they said they wanted Majd, that it was probably over Facebook," Yousef added.

On Monday, an Israeli military court sentenced Majd to 45 days in prison and a fine of 3,000 shekels ($800) for praising a recent bus bombing in Jerusalem.

Before Majd's arrest, Yousef and Nidal said they were aware of - but not alarmed by - their daughter's online presence. They expressed surprise that her post led to a series of interrogations at Jerusalem's Russian Compound, a police facility whose name evokes fear among many Palestinians.

Did she write stuff online? Yeah, like all other Palestinians. I really don't understand why they chose to arrest her.

"My daughter is not politically active; rather, her involvements are in beauty," Yousef said. "Did she write stuff online? Yeah, like all other Palestinians. I really don't understand why they chose to arrest her."

Since her arrest, Majd has been shepherded to and from court on six occasions as her case has moved through the system. The process has been hard on her, her parents told Al Jazeera, as Majd suffers from a number of health issues, including anaemia.

Majd's lawyer, Tareq Barghouti, told Al Jazeera that the Israeli military had monitored his client for two months before arriving at her house to make the arrest. One year ago, such charges would have been unheard of, he said, but "it has become a common thing these days, and there has been a wave of arrests on these Facebook posts".

Majd is one of nearly 150 Palestinians detained by Israeli forces over Facebook-related "incitement" since a wave of violence erupted in the region last October, according to prisoners' rights group Addameer. The numbers are a sharp increase from the 13 cases they documented in 2014.

Of those jailed in the past year, most were held in administrative detention without charge for three months. The maximum sentence for incitement is 10 years.

A spokesperson for the Israeli army confirmed to Al Jazeera that 59 Palestinians had been found guilty of provocative statements made online since last autumn. Some Palestinian attackers, including Muhannad Halabi, have written threatening statements on social media before launching attacks against Israelis.

The Israeli military is now monitoring Palestinian internet pages, searching for expressions of intent or approval of harming Israelis. "We have been studying very closely those patterns of incitement in Palestinian society," Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Emmanuel Nahshon told Al Jazeera.

To those who know Majd, however, she does not fit the profile of someone who would incite others to violence.

"Since she was a baby, she has loved nails," Nidal said, flipping through her smartphone among photographs of Majd in a range of daring styles; in one, she sports blonde hair with purple streaks, while in another, it flows long and red.

After she graduated high school, Majd began working as a stylist while earning two certificates in cosmetology, her parents said. When she is not applying makeup to clients or painting manicures, she spends her time with her mother, who works at a nearby gym. Majd enjoys swimming while her mother is busy with customers.

"We are not just mother and daughter; we are like sisters, like best friends," Nidal said.

The morning before Majd was arrested, mother and daughter perfected their makeup before driving to a grassy field near an Israeli settlement, Nidal said. They spent the afternoon taking pictures of each other enjoying nature, posing next to trees and brush.

Works Cited

Deger, Allison. "Israel Jails Palestinian Beautician over Facebook Post." - AJE News. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 May 2016.

W

 Response

It’s really sad that Palestine does not respect people’s freedom of speech. I can see how it is detrimental to the country for publicizing bombings and such, but I think they may have overreacted. As mentioned in the article, Majd is simply a 22 year old interested in makeup and as her dad said, several other Palestinians have been writing their thoughts on social media. The article is biased in some ways since the author was clearly in support of Majd’s family and their reaction towards the whole situation. I also think the police were wrong in invading Majd’s house the way they did. Hopefully in the future more laws will be put in place to respect people’s privacy and most of all freedom of speech.

CIA mocked for 'live tweeting' Bin Laden killing

US spy agency the CIA has "live tweeted" the military raid that killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan five years ago, drawing derision and satire from many people on Twitter.

Bin Laden was killed by US Navy Seal commandos on May 2, 2011, when they raided his compound in Abbottabad.

Several of the tweets included diagrams and maps of the compound, providing a rundown of the operation from the moment US President Barack Obama and intelligence officials approved it until the president received confirmation that bin Laden had been killed.

To mark the 5th anniversary of the Usama bin Ladin operation in Abbottabad we will tweet the raid as if it were happening today. #UBLRaid

— CIA (@CIA) May 1, 2016

The CIA's Twitter account has more than 1.3 million followers.

According to the timeline of events, two helicopters descended on the compound at 3:30pm and one crashed.

3:30 pm EDT - 2 helicopters descend on compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. 1 crashes, but assault continues without delay or injury #UBLRaid

— CIA (@CIA) May 1, 2016

The operation continued, however, and commandos killed the 54-year-old inside nine minutes.

3:39 pm EDT - Usama Bin Ladin found on third floor and killed #UBLRaid

— CIA (@CIA) May 1, 2016

One of the tweets showed an aerial photograph of the compound and a map of the region where it was located in Pakistan.

Daring #UBLRaid was an IC team effort & in close collaboration with our military partners. https://t.co/rklCIRLlgF pic.twitter.com/xZObdGeqPR

— CIA (@CIA) May 1, 2016

Another showed a layout of the premises.

Features

High walls/barbed wire

Double entry gates

No internet/phone connection

Trash burned not collected #UBLRaid pic.twitter.com/KyPIFPxA4d

— CIA (@CIA) May 1, 2016

Several social media users criticised the CIA's posts, while others satirised them.

Writing on its Twitter account, The Daily Show, a popular US news satire programme, mocked the agency.

If you live tweet the Bay of Pigs invasion, call us. Otherwise, stop it. #UBLRaid https://t.co/RJ7gwLbh1P

— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) May 2, 2016

Others lambasted the exercise as an attempt to justify CIA actions.

CIA tweeting #UBLraid is a more direct approach to pushing "torture works" lie than its usual route of using Hollywood https://t.co/yOQTkKSOhw

— Sarah Dougherty (@sm_doug) May 1, 2016

 And several argued that the US should have brought bin Laden to trial rather than kill him.

.@CIA is bragging about an extrajudicial murder. There's no other way to frame this; Bin Laden should've been brought to trial. #UBLRaid

— Zack Struver (@zstruver) May 1, 2016

Speaking to ABC News, CIA spokesperson Ryan Trapani defended the operation, arguing that the "takedown of bin Laden stands as one of the great intelligence successes of all time".

He said: "On the fifth anniversary, it is appropriate to remember the day and honour all those who had a hand in this achievement."US spy agency the CIA has "live tweeted" the military raid that killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan five years ago, drawing derision and satire from many people on Twitter.

Bin Laden was killed by US Navy Seal commandos on May 2, 2011, when they raided his compound in Abbottabad.

Several of the tweets included diagrams and maps of the compound, providing a rundown of the operation from the moment US President Barack Obama and intelligence officials approved it until the president received confirmation that bin Laden had been killed.

To mark the 5th anniversary of the Usama bin Ladin operation in Abbottabad we will tweet the raid as if it were happening today. #UBLRaid

— CIA (@CIA) May 1, 2016

The CIA's Twitter account has more than 1.3 million followers.

According to the timeline of events, two helicopters descended on the compound at 3:30pm and one crashed.

3:30 pm EDT - 2 helicopters descend on compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. 1 crashes, but assault continues without delay or injury #UBLRaid

— CIA (@CIA) May 1, 2016

The operation continued, however, and commandos killed the 54-year-old inside nine minutes.

3:39 pm EDT - Usama Bin Ladin found on third floor and killed #UBLRaid

— CIA (@CIA) May 1, 2016

One of the tweets showed an aerial photograph of the compound and a map of the region where it was located in Pakistan.

Daring #UBLRaid was an IC team effort & in close collaboration with our military partners. https://t.co/rklCIRLlgF pic.twitter.com/xZObdGeqPR

— CIA (@CIA) May 1, 2016

Another showed a layout of the premises.

Features

High walls/barbed wire

Double entry gates

No internet/phone connection

Trash burned not collected #UBLRaid pic.twitter.com/KyPIFPxA4d

— CIA (@CIA) May 1, 2016

Several social media users criticised the CIA's posts, while others satirised them.

Writing on its Twitter account, The Daily Show, a popular US news satire programme, mocked the agency.

If you live tweet the Bay of Pigs invasion, call us. Otherwise, stop it. #UBLRaid https://t.co/RJ7gwLbh1P

— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) May 2, 2016

Others lambasted the exercise as an attempt to justify CIA actions.

CIA tweeting #UBLraid is a more direct approach to pushing "torture works" lie than its usual route of using Hollywood https://t.co/yOQTkKSOhw

— Sarah Dougherty (@sm_doug) May 1, 2016

 And several argued that the US should have brought bin Laden to trial rather than kill him.

.@CIA is bragging about an extrajudicial murder. There's no other way to frame this; Bin Laden should've been brought to trial. #UBLRaid

— Zack Struver (@zstruver) May 1, 2016

Speaking to ABC News, CIA spokesperson Ryan Trapani defended the operation, arguing that the "takedown of bin Laden stands as one of the great intelligence successes of all time".

He said: "On the fifth anniversary, it is appropriate to remember the day and honour all those who had a hand in this achievement."

Bibliography

"CIA Mocked for 'live Tweeting' Bin Laden Killing." Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera and Agencies, 2 May 2016. Web. 2 May 2016.

Response

This article is talking about how the CIA is twitting the events that happened during the assassination of former terrorist Bin Laden on May 2, 2011 and the public's response to them,

Honestly, I think that this shouldn't have been part of the news. The CIA comments on twitter are simply controversial because some people supported Barack's Obama extrajudicial execution and others didn't. It has now been 6 years, and I don't think its an act of heroism that needs to be celebrated, its basically just a decision that had to be done.  The author presented the article well, and seemed to show no bias

9/11 memorial guards order kids to stop singing national anthem

Two tone-deaf security guards at the 9/11 Memorial got tough with some wide-eyed middle school kids visiting the city for the first time from their small town in North Carolina — because they sang “The Star-Spangled Banner.”

“You have to stop. This is considered a public demonstration!” one guard barked at the patriotic teens, their Waynesville Middle School music teacher, Martha Brown, told The Post.

The guards insisted the group needed a permit to sing, according to Brown.

“Some of the students were very upset and confused. I told the children, ‘This is a place where you need to respect authority even if you don’t understand it,’ ” she said.

The choir was wrapping up a whirlwind field trip to the Big Apple with a somber visit to the 9/11 Memorial on Friday, and had launched into their lilting version of the national anthem when the two guards cut them off.

One mom was so infuriated by the way her kid was treated that she posted footage of the truncated tribute online, where it immediately went viral and now has more than 300,000 views.

“So sad this is happening everywhere. They sounded great. God Bless America!” wrote the mom, Connie Shepherd Scanlon.

Brown had hoped to add some history to their otherwise music-filled itinerary, which included singing at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine and seeing “The Lion King” on Broadway.

The kids were so touched by Ground Zero, they asked to honor the site the best way they knew how, according to Brown.

“Singing was their way of paying respect,” the teacher said. “They were doing it very reverently.”

Brown said she understands the need for rules, but thinks the guard could have handled it better.

“He could have waited 30 to 45 seconds for us to finish, or he could have stopped us before we started, and it wouldn’t have gone viral,” she said.

A memorial spokeswoman admitted that the situation was mishandled.

“The guard did not respond appropriately,” she said. “We are working with our security staff to ensure that this does not happen again with future student performances.”

She did not say whether the security guard was disciplined.

Response:

This article talks about a small group of middle school from North Carolina who visited the 9/11 memorial site. During their visit they payed their respects by singing the national anthem only to be interrupted and dismissed by a security guard, which caused quite an uproar with the students and their teacher. However, I think this article is heavily biased towards the students because the author starts off with a rude remark describing the security guard as 'tone deaf'. In my opinion I think the security guard was doing the right thing because its part of his job. On one side, I can see how it could have been rude to interrupt the students before they finished but it shouldn't have caused such a scene. The article does not present the security guard's view on the situation-- it is very likely that it was a rule to not sing in the memorial sites. I think it also reflects poorly on the school since they were unable to politely respect authority. On the other hand, I do believe the children had good intentions and that they were simply unaware of the rules.

Works Cited:

Strum, Beckie, and Philip Messing. "9/11 Memorial Guards Order Kids to Stop Singing National Anthem." New York Post. Word Press, 25 Apr. 2016. Web. 25 Apr. 2016.

Zoe Saldana in dark make-up is no way to represent Nina Simone onscreen

Last week, the trailer and poster for the forthcoming Nina Simone biopic were released, and we were given our first look at Zoe Saldana playing the legendary musician. Saldana reportedly replaced the singer Mary J Blige after the latter dropped out before shooting began. Indeed, it’s been a controversial decision from the start, with Simone’s daughter describing it as “not the best choice”.

Zoe Saldana faces criticism over dark makeup in Nina Simone film trailer

 Debate surrounding the film, Nina – which is based on Simone’s 1992 autobiography – was reignited when the poster was released. It showed the actress with a darker skin tone and a seemingly wider nose than usual. The trailer, in which Saldana again appears in dark makeup, only made for more uncomfortable viewing.

As a lighter-skinned actress of mixed Latino and African heritage, Saldana cannot deny the advantage that her physical appearance gives her over her darker counterparts when going up for parts. India Arie, who played Simone in the TV movie American Dreams, said that Saldana’s appearance in the film made her “sad”. In an open letter, Arie referred to the casting as an example of “black(er) face” – with the actor having to darken up to play Simone.

And why does this matter? Not only is the marginalisation of darker skinned actresses in Hollywood a huge problem, but Simone’s racial identity was a crucial part of her life. She was denied access to the Curtis Institute of Music in Philadelphia because of her race, but she was unbowed, using her musical genius to become a prominent voice in the civil rights movement. As Arie says in a recent interview with the Hollywood Reporter: “In the context of the politics of race in America, and the politics of race in the entertainment industry in America, to make a movie about a person like that and cast an actress that has to wear blackface and a prosthetic nose is tone-deaf.” In my opinion, it is an insult to Simone.

Why does Hollywood choose to darken an actor’s skin and create a prosthetic nose rather than casting someone of the desired skin tone and features? The fact that it is even considered as a matter for the costume department is problematic in itself: these are the features and skin tone that some of us are born with.

And no, Meryl Streep and Nicole Kidman wearing prosthetics in The Iron Lady or The Hours is not the same thing. They are white women playing white characters. Saldana’s case is different because of what having a wider nose means in a society driven by Eurocentric notions of beauty that consider any deviations as undesirable.

Many have complained that “race shouldn’t be an issue here”, or “all that matters is the acting”. But if race isn’t an issue why not allow Saldana to play Simone exactly as she is? Doesn’t the fact that they have done the opposite suggest otherwise? It suggests they felt the makeup was a requirement to portray her realistically. Saldana’s status as a talented actress cannot mask the fact that in Hollywood darker women remain largely invisible.

We are not living in a time where we are short of black talent. There is an abundance of actors who better resemble Simone – Uzo Aduba, Viola Davis and India Arie, for instance. But Hollywood has chosen to overlook them in favour of going to the trouble of painting Saldana’s skin and creating new facial features for her.

Some commentators have even said that those who oppose Saldana’s casting should be satisfied that Simone is being played by a black woman at all. Society is so numb to the casual whitewashing of the film industry that some believe we should praise them for using a black actor to play a black character.

There is no room for mistakes when it comes to retelling the story of Simone. Her music provided so much of the sound of the civil rights movement. She rose to fame during a time when it was difficult for people who looked like her to be accepted.

Do not be mistaken. This isn’t a matter of light skin v dark skin. Lighter women are often also victims of discrimination. But we cannot pretend that darker women enjoy the same opportunities that lighter-skinned actors do. It is absurd to believe lighter-skinned black women are better at acting. This is colourism at its most obvious.

With the egregiously whitewashed Gods of Egypt having recently been a box-office flop, I can only hope Nina goes the same way. Though its makers may have good intentions, they have continued the Hollywood narrative that darker women of colour just aren’t good enough.

Nina Simone embodied what it means to be “unapologetically black”. This casting goes against everything she fought for and believed in.

Response

This article is talking about how Hollywood is now associating racism with colorism. Nina Simone's biopic trailer was released last week, and Zoe Saldana was chosen to play the lead role. The controversial issue appears because Zoe Saldana was transformed to fit this role by using 'dark skin make up' as well as make her nose wider to fit the role of Nina Simone. This is presented to many as a form of 'black face' because there are several dark skinned talented African-American's who could have played the role of Nina Simone such as Viola Davis, Uzo Aduba and many others without the need of changing Zoe. This also shows the colorism that exists in Hollywood, which is choosing 'light-skinned' African-Americans' over 'dark-skinned'. Though some argue that the role was solely  based on talent not the color of skin, the author Frances Acquaah mentioned that if that was case Zoe would have played the role exactly as she is. I think the author may seem to show bias towards public opinion, but I think she did a good job of telling it as it is.

Works Cited

Acquaah, Frances. "Zoe Saldana in Dark-makeup Is No Way to Represent Nina Simone Onscreen | Frances Acquaah." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 07 Mar. 2016. Web. 07 Mar. 2016.

We can't allow the refugee crisis to plunge Greece into chaos

The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has warned that European countries cannot afford to allow the continent’s continuing refugee crisis to plunge debt-stricken Greece into chaos by shutting their borders to migrants.

With up to 70,000 refugees expected to become stranded on Greece’s northern borders in the coming days, Merkel warned that the recently bailed-out Athens government could become paralysed by the huge numbers of arrivals from war-torn areas of the Middle East and Africa.

“Do you seriously believe that all the euro states that last year fought all the way to keep Greece in the eurozone – and we were the strictest – can one year later allow Greece to, in a way, plunge into chaos?” she said in an interview with public broadcaster ARD.

Merkel also defended her open-door policy for migrants, rejecting any limit on the number of refugees allowed into her country despite divisions within her government.

Merkel said there was no “Plan B” for her aim of reducing the flow of migrants through cooperation with Turkey and warned that the efforts could unravel were Germany to cap the number of refugees it accepts.

“Sometimes, I also despair. Some things go too slow. There are many conflicting interests in Europe,” Merkel told state broadcaster ARD. “But it is my damn duty to do everything I can so that Europe finds a collective way.“

Merkel spelled out her motivation to keep Germany’s borders open without limits on refugees, a policy which has damaged her once widespread popularity.

“There is so much violence and hardship on our doorstep,” she said. “What’s right for Germany in the long term? There, I think it is to keep Europe together and to show humanity.

Merkel ratcheted up her rhetoric against anti-immigration protesters by calling the abuse shouted at a busload of refugees in eastern Germany in February “repulsive” and “unjustifiable”.

A video of about 100 people trying to block migrants from entering a shelter in the Clausnitz on 18 February prompted concern about growing extremism in Germany. The number of far-right attacks on migrants has increased significantly over the past year, as more than a million people came to Germany seeking asylum.

Merkel has seen her ratings plummet because of her handling of the migrants issue. The majority of those surveyed by public broadcaster ARD earlier in February were dissatisfied with her.

 Europe’s growing tensions show us exactly why we need the EU

Germany attracted 1.1 million asylum seekers last year, leading to calls from across the political spectrum for a change in its handling of refugees coming to Europe to escape war and poverty in Syria, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Merkel faces what she said on Sunday was the biggest challenge of her decade in office and is struggling to secure a Europe-wide plan for dealing with the migrants. She is pinning her hopes on talks between European Union leaders and Turkey on 7 March and a migration summit on 18-19 March.

But the scale of the problem was highlighted on Sunday with around 22,000 people seeking to travel to countries in northern Europe trapped in Greece. An estimated 6,000 were stuck at the Macedonian border after Balkan countries along the migration route tightened restrictions on their frontiers.

After many failed attempts, the two meetings look like the final chance to agree on a joint response before warmer weather encourages more arrivals across the Mediterranean. But Merkel said she would fight on for a European solution even were the March 7 meeting to fall short.

The migrants question has not only divided Europe. There is also strong dissent within Germany and the governing coalition.

Politicians from the state of Bavaria’s Christian Social Union, the sister party to Merkel’s CDU, have been critical of her stance.

They want a limit on the number of migrants, similar to that imposed in Austria. So too does the majority of Germans in the ARD survey.

Austria, the last stop on the way to Germany for hundreds of thousands of migrants, recently imposed restrictions on its borders, setting off a domino effect in Europe in limiting the flow of people, and leaving hundreds stranded in Greece.

Merkel dismissed such a “rigid limit”, saying: “There is no point in believing that I can solve the problem through the unilateral closure of borders.“

Leading German Social Democrats, part of the country’s governing coalition, earlier accused Merkel’s conservative finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble of being too thrifty in dealing with the migrant crisis.

The criticism came after Schaeuble labelled Social Democrat proposals for wider social spending on housing and public services to complement the integration of migrants as “pitiful”.

Stephan Weil, the Social Democrat premier of the state of Lower Saxony, hit back on Sunday, calling for a bigger social services budget as the country accommodates over a million migrants. Merkel said she did not support such an idea.

“The finance minister obviously just doesn’t get it,” Weil told the Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper.

Pointing to the high cost of integrating migrants, Weil said: “We cannot create the impression that this is happening at the expense of the weaker members of our society.”

Works Cited

Farrer, Martin. "We Can't Allow Refugee Crisis to Plunge Greece into Chaos, Says Merkel." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 28 Feb. 2016. Web. 29 Feb. 2016.

Response

The refugee crisis in Europe is one that is affecting Germany as a whole, and particulary Greece. The number of migrants in Greece is starting to overflow, and German chancellor Angel Merkel is pushign for Greece to pull away. Even though this may seem cruel, it makes sense especially after Greece's recent plunge in the economic crisis. Though I stand that it is right for European countries to welcome refugees, i agree with Angel Merkel that Greece should pull away because soon they will not be able to sustain them, and the Greece might start protests against migrants as well. I think it would be better if Greece imposed restrictions on their borders. The author showed no bias, clearly representing both sides to the situation.

Dozens Dead after Al-Shabaab Islamist's bomb town in Mogadishu

At least 30 people have been killed after the al-Shabaab Islamist group bombed a busy junction and restaurant in the Somalian town of Baidoa.
Al-Shabaab often carries out such suicide attacks in the capital Mogadishu and elsewhere in its bid to topple Somalia’s western- backed government. The group wants to impose its strict version of Islamic rule in the Horn of Africa nation.
“The restaurant and the junction were very busy,” police major Bilow Nurr told Reuters from Baidoa, which lies about 245km (152 miles) north-west of Mogadishu.
Police colonel Abdi Osman said the death toll was 30, with 40 others injured. A hospital officials said many of the bodies it received were charred beyond recognition.
A police officer said a suicide car bomb blew up at the junction while a second blast – possibly a bomb that had been planted or a suicide bomber – struck the restaurant.
“We targeted government officials and forces,” al-Shabaab’s military operation spokesman Sheikh Abdiasis Abu Musab told Reuters, adding there was a police station nearby.
Ismail Olad told Reuters the two locations were full of civilians and security forces. “I heard a huge crash at the busy junction and as I ran, I heard another blast at a restaurant ahead of me. The whole place was covered by smoke,” he said.
The blasts follows a car bomb attack in Mogadishu near a park and hotel on Friday that killed 14 people, police said. He said three militants from the al-Shabaab group were also killed.

Works Cited

Dozens Dead after Al-Shabaab." The Guardian. The Guardian, 29 Feb. 2016. Web. 29 Feb. 2016

Response

It is always devastating to hear about terrorist attacks, but Al-Shabaab has gone too far. After terrorizing Nairobi, Kenya last year, it seems that they are advancing to other countries within Africa such as Somalia, Their main target seems to be targeting big public areas such as; malls, restaurants etc. The police investigation also seems to be doing their best, but failing to combat their attempts. The author seems to show no bias, and tells the stories as it is.

'Suicide bomber' on Somalia plane was meant to board Turkish flight

A suspected suicide bomber who blew a hole in the fuselage of a Daallo Airlines plane last week and forced it to make an emergency landing in Mogadishu was meant to be on a Turkish Airlines flight, Daallo’s chief executive said on Monday.

The bomber was sucked out of the plane through the one-yard-wide hole when the blast ripped open the pressurised cabin in flight, officials said. The pilot landed the plane in the Somali capital, from where it had taken off.

No group has so far taken responsibility for the attack but US officials suspect Islamist militant group al Shabaab, which has links to al-Qaida, was responsible for the blast.

Daallo Airlines chief executive, Mohamed Yassin, said most of the passengers who were on the bombed flight were scheduled to fly with Turkish Airlines, but were flown to Djibouti by one of his planes after the Turkish carrier cancelled its flight, citing bad weather.

“That particular passenger boarded the aircraft on a Turkish Airlines boarding pass and was on the list for the Turkish Airlines manifest,” Yassin told Reuters by telephone from Dubai.

Yassin said Daallo picked up the 70 stranded Turkish Airlines passengers to fly them to Djibouti, including the suicide bomber. In total, the flight had 74 passengers.

Turkish Airlines spokesman Yahya Ustun confirmed the carrier had cancelled a flight to Mogadishu last week due to bad weather and said the company will not make any further comment.

Somalia, mired in conflict since civil war broke out in 1991, has few air links outside east Africa. In 2012, Turkish Airlines became the first major international commercial airline to fly out of Somalia in more than two decades.

Mogadishu’s heavily guarded airport has several safety perimeter fences and checkpoints. It houses a large UN compound along with several other Western embassies.

Somali officials said an investigation had been launched and arrests made, including airport workers.

US officials said investigators believe the bomb was hidden in a laptop computer, and that the bomber had some type of connection to airline or airport personnel.

CCTV footage appears to show two airport workers inside the terminal handing the suicide bomber a laptop, according to the government spokesman.

“Some of the people that we have arrested are cooperating,” spokesman Abdisalam Aato told Reuters. He said security at the airport has been stepped up and that the government was seeking new technologies to improve screenings.

Al Shabaab, which wants to topple the government and impose a harsh version of Islamic law, has targeted the airport in the past. It has also attacked the Turkish embassy in Mogadishu.

Yassin said Daallo has been reassured by Somali officials that security was being improved, and will keep flying to Somalia. “We have been there for 25 years,” he said. “Our efforts to keep Somalia linked to the rest of the world will continue.”

Works Cited

"'Suicide Bomber' on Somalia Plane Was Meant to Board Turkish Flight."The Guardian. The Guardian, 9 Feb. 2016. Web. 9 Feb. 2016. <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/09/suicide-bomber-on-somalia-plane-was-meant-to-board-turkish-flight>.

Response:

This article talks about the bomb attack that happened in Somalia on board the Daallo airline plane, The suicide bomber blew a hole in the fuselage and forced it to make an emergency landing in Mogadishu.. This tragic situation has caused quite a stir, especially that it was meant to be the Turkish Airline flight rather than Daallo airlines. The author seems to be biased towards an Al-Shabab attack, due to the ongoing tensions that they have caused and the threats that they have made towards the U.S. I would agree with the author in saying that the attack could have been caused by the Al-Shabab, because in the article it mentions that the suicide bomber was seen to have been working with people at the airport, showing that there was some inside-work involved, And the fact that the terrorist was supposed to be attacking the Turkish flight provides more evidence that it could have been an Al-Shabab provoked terrorist action.

If China had to choose, it would be South Korea

On September 3, the Chinese capital will witness a massive military parade. The parade will become the highest point of the lavish celebrations, commemorating the 70th anniversary of the end of the Second World War in Asia. Chinese diplomats worked hard to ensure that as many foreign dignitaries as possible would attend the celebrations. Admittedly, their success was limited: Most developed nations chose to send only low-level delegations to Beijing. However, one feature on the list of attendees attracted much attention: while South Korea's President Park Geun-hye will be in Beijing on that remarkable day, her North Korean counterpart, Supreme Leader and First Chairman Kim Jong-un will not show up and will send one of his emissaries instead.

At first glance, this picture looks strange - even bizarre. Both Park and Kim hail from powerful political families, and both of them are scions of former leaders. However, in the days of the Second World War, Park's father was a young officer in the Imperial Japanese Army, whose defeat is now being celebrated in Beijing. Kim's grandfather was a brave guerrilla commander in the war, waging a campaign against Japan. Furthermore, North Korea is still technically China's ally, and - if official rhetoric is to be believed - a fraternal communist nation: one of few such nations to have survived to present day.

South Korea, on the other hand, is a liberal democracy and an ally of the United States. It even maintains some anti-communist legislation, which is widely ignored in practise. However, there is nothing surprising about the presence of Park and the absence of her North Korean counterpart. Of course, a significant factor is Kim's notorious aversion to summits, but there are deeper reasons behind his absence in the Beijing celebrations. The economy is what matters most in South Korea, and for the sake of the economy alone, Seoul works hard to improve relations with China. The historical legacies and ideological commitments are frequently invoked in East Asia when it is necessary to justify policies, but in practise, economic interests and geostrategic calculations reign supreme.

South Korea is a liberal democracy, but China is still its largest trade partner. In recent years, South Korea's trade with China has exceeded its combined trade with Japan and the US, which are its second and third largest trade partners. The economy is what matters most in South Korea - and for the sake of the economy alone, Seoul works hard to improve relations with China. It also helps that unlike many of China's neighbors, South Korea does not have a tradition of wars and hostility with China and has no problem with its fast political ascent. Despite being a US ally, South Korea does not want to be sucked into Sino-American clashes over territorial claims and other issues, which mean little to the average South Korean. Lastly, in Seoul, there are growing doubts about the US' ability to remain the guarantor of South Korea's security in the long run.

China is looking at these changes in Seoul's attitudes favourably. Unlike Japan, which is perceived in Beijing as the US' "unsinkable air carrier", the attitude towards South Korea is far more nuanced. Many Chinese analysts quietly hope that one day South Korea will completely drift away from the US. On the other hand, the attitude towards North Korea in Beijing is remarkably harsh. Kim's state is widely seen as a troublesome, irresponsible and capricious neighbour - always demanding aid and concessions while ignoring China's vital interests.

The North Korean nuclear programme threatens the non-proliferation agreement, which China - like all other "legally accepted" nuclear powers - is eager to maintain.

The North Korean brinkmanship threatens not only the stability along the Chinese borders, but it also creates a pretext for the US to maintain and increase their military presence in the region.

The Chinese are driven mad by North Korea's unwillingness to improve its economy through emulating Chinese market-oriented reforms.

In short, for the Chinese, North Korea is not attractive - unlike South Korea, with its sophisticated culture, huge market and willingness to make deals with Beijing.

However, these negative feelings are fully reciprocated in Pyongyang. North Korean leaders have always been eager to manipulate China in order to receive aid or preferential trade conditions, but they have never trusted their great neighbour. To an extent, this mistrust reflects a strong sense of nationalism that's common in the North, but it also reflects the sad experience of occasional Chinese interventions.

Finally, the Chinese want a reforming and non-nuclear North Korea, and this is exactly the option Kim and his advisers see as completely unacceptable. Rightly so or not, they believe that such a North Korea that China dreams of will not survive for long without being overwhelmed by both internal and external threats.

In the past, China was interested in supporting North Korea as a buffer zone. Such ideas are still widespread among Chinese officials and analysts, but many now doubt whether such a buffer zone is as important as it once was - after all, South Korea is slowly but surely changing in ways that China can only approve of.

Thus, regardless of official rhetoric, and irrespective of which side the current leaders' fathers and grandfathers fought for 75 years ago, the logic of the situation pushes South Korea towards better relations with China. But this same logic means that it makes more sense for North Korea to keep a certain distance from Beijing.

Works cited

Lankov, Andrea. "If China Had to Choose, It Would Be South Korea." Aljazeera. Aljazeera, 2 Sept. 2015. Web. 1 Feb. 2016. <http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/09/china-choose-south-korea-150902073117753.html>.

Response

The article explains why China would rather maintain ties with South Korea than North Korea. North Korea refused to attend a military parade in Beijing because of their standing hatred with South Korean president, Park Geun-hye who used to be part of the Japanese army. China has long been North Korea’s ally, supplying them with aid, but has been against North Korea’s Nuclear bombs which is North Korea’s pride. South Korea on the other hand, is doing its best to maintain good ties with China in terms of trade and China is happy to serve South Koreans on this matter. South Korea is also free from a history of wars and hostility with China. North Korea also stands on the motto of being self-sufficient, along with their strong sense of nationalism. While North Korea is strong on their views, they don’t realize that this is causing China to be more intolerant of North Korean actions, and it wouldn’t be surprising if North Korea loses its trade options with China. The author did a good job in showing both the North Korean view, the South Korean view and the Chinese views. I didn’t see any evidence of bias in the article

Straight Outta Hollywood and Oscar's white supremacy

The United States is rapidly becoming a majority-minority nation. Yet, the composition of Oscars voters, and this year's Academy Awards nominees, is still overwhelmingly white. For the second straight year, the Oscar nominees within the major categories are all white men or women. Not a single African or Asian American, Latina/o or Native American was nominated. Another Oscars' whitewash has spurred social media protests (#OscarsSoWhite), criticism from within Hollywood, and even a call for boycott demanding "more diversity". 

Demands for greater diversity within American cinema, whether within films themselves or award recognitions, are not new. They were launched five, 10 and 20 years ago. These demands for more diversity have rendered token progress. In years after protests, Halle Berry won the Best Actress in the Leading Role category in 2001, and in 2013, Lupita Nyang'o won the Best Actress in a Supporting Role in 2013 for 12 Years a Slave. Yet, these moments of minority recognition are fleeting and far between. And almost always, followed by award whitewashes or near whitewashes. Illustrating that demands for mere or more diversity should be replaced, or recast, with calls demanding structural reform within the Academy itself. 

Hollywood or Hollywhite?

Oscar voters are old, wealthy, white, and men. Not unlike every other hall of US power, this narrow demographic controls which films are made, which actors are cast, and certainly, which films and actors deserve Oscar recognition. Ninety-four percent of the Academy are white; 77 percent are men; African-Americans comprise roughly 2 percent of the Academy, while Latina/o voters are less than 2 percent. Other communities of colour, including Asian, Arab and Native Americans, are virtually non-existent within the Oscar voting committee. Perhaps America's quintessential old boys' network, a virtually all-white Academy is the principal reason the 2016 Oscar nominations were once again swept by white men and women. If the racial composition of Oscar voters remains almost entirely white and male, then the composition of the nominees will follow in that very line. 

Not unlike an informally segregated golf course, or corporate boardroom, these gatekeepers not only determine - in the words of Martin Scorsese - who's "in the frame and what's out". But also, whose cinematic performances and contributions, creativity and impact, are awarded. Moreover, the racial identity of the Academy illustrates why films centering on minority narratives - like Ryan Coogler's Creed or F Gary Gray's biopic, Straight Outta Compton - did not resonate with voters, and ultimately, were not nominated. 

The latter film, depicting the story of the landmark rap group NWA was both critical and a box office hit. But the nearly all-black cast, featuring the rise, fall and impact of the controversial rap collective and its iconic members, likely clashed with the interests and sensibilities of Oscar voters. One member of the Academy, a white male, stated, "I happen to think Straight Outta Compton is not a great film for reasons of structure and substance."Perhaps fittingly, the-all white music industry that feared and didn't understand NWA nearly three decades ago mirrors the all-white Oscar voters who don't understand Straight Outta Compton today. History certainly repeats itself. But this time, within another segment of the entertainment industry also dominated by white, old, wealthy men.

Structural instead of symbolic diversity

The reoccurring demands for racial diversity should be redirected from the Oscar nominations and towards the Academy itself. Certainly, if the racial composition of Oscar voters remains almost entirely white and male, then the composition of the nominees will follow in that very line.Though interrupted some years by nominations and awards to filmmakers or actors of colour, this shouldn't be perceived as emblematic of racial progress in Hollywood, but as intermittent deviations from the norm that are more superficial and strategic than symbolic of structural inclusion.

Meaningful racial diversity within the Academy itself should be reframed as the goal. Namely, integrating black and brown voters that can relate to the structure and feel the substance of Straight Outta Compton. And including gatekeepers of colour that represent the racial and multicultural evolution of the country, who will greenlight films and recognise performances that reflect the changing demographics within the country.

In cinema, African American narratives are ghettoised within a separated "black films" industry. Latina/o American storylines are branded foreign and unmarketable, while this demographic ranks as the fastest growing population in the country.And Muslim depictions in cinema virtually limited to terrorist villains and national security threats, intensifying the hateful political rhetoric and on-the-ground Islamophobia gripping the country. 

A brand of bigoted diversity, as illustrated by the six Oscar nominations American Sniper received last year, Oscar voters are more than keen to celebrate. To put things into perspective, American Sniper - a film lionising a soldier indiscriminately gunning down Iraqis - received six more nominations than actors or filmmakers combined both in 2015 and 2016. And one more Oscar award.A film depicting the brutal execution of minorities is more deserving of Oscar recognition than films humanising minorities. This message, unlike the structure and substance of Straight Outta Compton, resonated resoundingly with Oscar voters.

Soft power and subtle racism

Films are far more than films. They, perhaps more than another medium, are the salient shapers of views on politics and culture, beauty and identity. Particularly American cinema, consumed by viewers in every country in the world, and emulated by film industries near and far. Apart from exporting the most recent blockbuster or action hit, Hollywood also exports the prevailing face of racism, colourism, and the underlying messages and patent images that whiteness is the benchmark. While the casting out of black and brown bodies reaffirms deeply rooted racial castes that brand these groups inferior.Calls for mere or more diversity in Oscar nominations will not change the natural trajectory of white supremacy within Hollywood. Demands for structural instead of token diversity - followed by meaningful reform - will.

Bibliography

View in list  |  Ed

Beydoun, Khaled A. "Straight Outta Hollywood and Oscar's White Supremacy." - Al Jazeera English. Al Jazeera, 24 Jan. 2016. Web. 25 Jan. 2016. <http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/01/straight-outta-hollywood-oscar-white-supremacy-160124050957002.html.>

Response 

This article is talking about white supremacy that exists in Hollywood today. Over the years, it has been evident that whites are most likely to be awarded and voted for Oscars, disregarding the vast majority of diverse actors/actresses who play vital roles in today’s cinema. I agree with the author that it is definitely showing white supremacy, because the voters are white and lack diversity on their board--furthermore showing that it will be impossible to see other races represented in Hollywood in the future. The few nominees of color who have been chosen such as Lupita Nyong’o and others do not represent the immense number of black, Hispanic, Arabs and Asian actors who deserve Oscar’s. Another existing form of white supremacy which I believe is a valid point in this article, is the actor’s roles in these movies; whereby the Arab or Muslim is always playing the terrorist or the national security threat, thus causing a worldwide analogy of all Middle-Easterners as terrorists. I don’t think the author shows any bias in this article, it is well-written and direct.