Top Everything of 2016

With the dawn of each new year, various media outlets and bloggers alike do write ups and videos about the previous one.  Most will focus on a specific topic.  For me, though, a year contains far too many interesting things, and I have way too many interests, to just cover one topic.  So, like I did for 2014 and 2015, I will choose my top picks for a variety of categories for 2016.

My criteria for each pick is a combination of merit/quality, personal preference (anyone who tries to pretend their "top" lists are objective are lying to themselves), achievements in a given field, and cultural significance/impact.  I also try to make choices for world news/current events-related picks that I have a decent amount of knowledge about, that way I can have something unique to add instead of just relaying the same basic points everyone else does.  That way, if I fail hilariously at saying anything interesting, I can fail hilariously my way.

Enjoy!

MOVIE: Moonlight

Gotta go with Moonlight here.

So, uhh, I saw Moonlight way after I made this list.  I initially chose Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.  I'll keep my reasoning for Fantastic Beasts here, but yeah, Moonlight is incredible and my pick for best movie of the year, and the movie Arrival is equally fanfastic.

There were some fine movies I saw this year, from Civil War to Rogue One, that I enjoyed.  None of them blew me away or stayed with me long after I watched them, however, even if some of them made interesting or noteworthy narrative moves.  Overall, 2016 felt slim compared to 2015, or at least among the movies I've seen.  There was one exception, however.  Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them has remained with me more than any other movie I saw last year- or at least stayed with me more than any other movie from last year in a positive way.  I still have nightmares about paying money for Suicide Squad.

Unlike so many movies this year- including movies that I enjoyed, like Civil War- Fantastic Beasts offers a cast where each character has both a reason to be there and a reason for us to like them.   For instance, before seeing the film, I had heard that a character without magical abilities would be one of the four main characters.  I remember rolling my eyes and thinking the character would feel like a waste of space.   Yet this character, Jacob Kowalski, ended up being my favorite character of the movie.  He was both a relatable everyman and an aspirational figure in how well he handled everything.  I don't want to spoil anything, but the end of the movie had me on the verge of tears (no, it's not about him dying).

While I didn't connect with Newt Scamander or the other characters as much as I did with Kowalski, I did appreciate one thing about Newt's Scamander that another writer pointed out: the way Newt evades using aggression and other traits of hyper-masculinity in his pursuit of his narrative goals.  Even in his most dire moments, Newt is never using threats or force to get what he wants or try to pursue people.  Rather, he appeals to people's empathy and reason, sometimes to success and sometimes to failure.

Don't get me wrong here.  I train at an MMA gym, I love action movies, and I think violence could have theoretically been justified in a few situations in this movie.  I'm not saying I think violence is automatically bad or that it has no place in entertainment.  At the same time, almost every single adventure/fantasy/sci-fi movie in the history of cinema which has featured male protagonists has had them either deal with their problems primarily with super masculine tactics like aggression, intimidation, and violence, or had them portrayed as weak and worthy of derision for not using those tactics.  It's refreshing to see some variety here.  It's also nice to see a popular, well-regarded movie where a male character can keep his gentleness and still accomplish his goals.

COMEDY MOVIE: The Nice Guys

While there were plenty of funny movies last year- including Civil War- I could only remember one of the comedy movies I saw this year without Googling "comedy movies 2016" to come up with a list.  The Nice Guys is a buddy cop movie without cops set in the 1970s.  Directed by Shane Black, this movie stars Russel Crowe and Ryan Gosling as two private eyes who, as most protagonists in these types of movies tend to do, find themselves in way over their heads.

What works so well with this movie is the performances of Crowe and Gosling, as well as Angourie Rice, who plays Ryan Gosling's daughter with a jaded maturity similar to Chloe Grace Moretz's role in 500 Days of Summer as Joseph Gordon Levitt's younger sister.  All of them do exceptionally well, especially Ryan Gosling, who breaks his typical mold by acting like a bumbling idiot and dork instead of his usual charming cool-guy roles.  This movie alone is proof that Gosling has more range than we may think.

Aside from consistent laughs, the movie has a genuinely interesting, lively environment in its recreation of the 1970s.  The arc of the characters in this movie are serviceable enough that the regular laughs and engaging environment can keep you caring, though they are nothing special.  The only major disappointment here is that the plot is not very engaging.  It is both convoluted and also just not that interesting.  That problem aside, though, the movie is a great laugh and unapologetically unique.

ANIMATED MOVIE: Zootopia

Zootopia has a lot going for it.  It has gorgeous visuals (seriously, look at that city), a creatively imagined world, well-defined characters, metaphors about racism, and poignant emotional moments that work precisely because of everything else on this list.  Almost everything is well-executed and works wonderfully together.  The fact that Shakira shows up as a singing gazelle is just a bonus.

The only place this movie slips up is the metaphor department.  The movie does a good job of showing how the predators are stereotyped as aggressive and untrustworthy.  There is a very powerful moment where a main character even falls into the trap of unintentionally stereotyping her predator friend, and the look of betrayal on that friend's face is devastating.  The scene where they make up resonates just as well in the opposite direction.

The problem is, the metaphor doesn't make sense.  Predators are treated like an oppressed group, but they're also disproportionately in positions of power, from the city government to the police department.  So is this a case of a group in power being oppressed?  By definition, they wouldn't be oppressed if that were the case.

Still, this is a children's movie, and it offers a good chance for kids to understand discrimination and why it is bad.  The message of the movie is, predictably, that we need to love one another and live in harmony.  Even with a few slips in the details of the metaphor the movie executes its theme well, and is just plain fun to watch in the process.

ACTOR: Diego Luna

I could talk about his charming performance as Cassian in Rogue One, his surprisingly believable role as a gangster in Blood Father, or how much it means to us Latina/o folks that he keeps his accent in his movies.  Instead, I have a different idea.  Watch this video of Diego Luna talking about Jabba the Hutt and tell me he doesn't deserve this spot on the list based off of that alone.  Go ahead, I'll wait.

ACTRESS: Kate McKinnon

Boy, that controversy about the Ghostbusters reboot, right?  Woo.  What a mess.  Apparently, in an era of nonstop reboots, having a new set of Ghostbusters that have ovaries was the straw that broke the camel's back.  To the point that the stars of the movie were being harassed, particularly Leslie Jones, because if you're going to be sexist garbage you might as well be racist garbage, too.

Beyond all the controversy, what we got was a good but not great movie.  Overall I like the original a little better than this remake, but each movie has their strengths.  This version's biggest strength is undoubtedly Kate McKinnon, who steals the show as the delightfully weird Dr Jillian Holtzmann.  As Holtzmann she plays a wacky Ghostbuster who is the best inventor of the group.  She is always cooking up new gadgets, which saves the group from certain destruction more than once.  She also brings a humor, liveliness and charisma that make her my favorite Ghostbuster of all time (sorry, Bill Murray).

In addition to her stealing the show as Holtzmann, she also did a great job as Hillary Clinton on SNL this year.  It's no secret that she and her coworkers, along with most of the rest of Hollywood, are Team Democrat.  What I appreciate, though, is that in her imitation of Hillary Clinton she wasn't afraid to directly point out problems with Clinton, either.  Not just poke fun at some of her mannerisms, but also some of her more dubious policy history and campaign contributions as well.  Combined with her excellent understanding of Clinton's body language and mannerisms, her impression became a highlight of SNL during 2016.  Her Ruth Bader Ginsberg ain't bad, either.

HIP HOP ALBUM: 4 Your Eyez Only

Unlike the movie categories, hip hop album of the year was difficult for me to choose because of how many dope albums came out.  In the end I was stuck between the newest efforts from Run the Jewels, J Cole, and Common.  I didn't feel right choosing Common because his 2016 effort didn't feel even the slightest bit close to the best work he's ever put out, and I didn't feel right choosing Run the Jewels since I chose them for album of the year in 2015 and I don't like choosing the same thing for consecutive years.  That left J Cole's 4 Your Eyez Only.

Something funny about this album is that it is technically a concept album, which means it should be further from the reality of Cole than the average album is for the average MC.  4 Your Eyez Only it is from the perspective of a fictional former hustler from the hood who is recording the album for his daughter.  It is quite clear, though, that J Cole put quite a lot of himself into the character.  Because the album pretends to be about someone else, however, Cole is paradoxically more personal, honest, and vulnerable on this album than the overwhelmingly majority of MCs choose to be on theirs.  I haven't heard a record this honest and vulnerable, as well as genuinely introspective, since I heard Varsity Blues from MURS.

One of the recurring themes of this album is death.  An awareness of it, an acknowledgement of its ever-present reality, a fear of it, a desire to symbolically overcome it through some sort of legacy.  This album can be seen as the hip hop equivalent of Ingmar Bergman's The Seventh Seal or Atlus's video game Persona 3.  While Max Von Sydow's knight finds meaning in the face of death by saving a family with a baby boy and Makato finds meaning in death by sacrificing himself to save the world, J Cole's protagonist finds meaning through his daughter.

This presence of death isn't hard to miss with an intro track titled "For Whom The Bell Tolls," invoking John Donne's wonderful poem Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions, which is where the phrase used by everyone from Hemingway to Metallica to, now, J Cole comes from.  The poem focuses on how every individual death diminishes humanity.  As Donne puts it: "any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."  This album takes that theme and runs with it, reflecting on the tragedy that happens when so many people are disenfranchised and made more familiar with death than anyone should be.  Titles for other tracks like "Everybody Dies" and "Immortal" reinforce this theme, and that's to say nothing of the lyrics.  J Cole may have invented a new sub-genre with this album: hood existentialism.

One track has received a lot of flack for being about "laundry" of all things.  Yes, the track is called "Foldin' Clothes" and that is indeed what it's about on the surface.  But that's like saying Citizen Kane is about a sled or that The Great Gatsby is about parties in mansions.  The chorus explicitly says that he wants to do it to help out the mother of his child by taking care of chores, and the song contains the lyrics "listen, this is a meditation for me/a practice in being present, there's nowhere I need to be/except right here with you/except right here with you, folding clothes."  Now, these lyrics are admittedly corny and not especially complex, something which can be said about most of this album and prevents it from reaching classic status in my eyes.  But its thematic coherence, its well-crafted mood, and its ability to make you think about its subject matter make it my favorite album of the year.

HIP HOP SONG: Nobody Speak

I mean, right?

MMA PROSPECT: Érik "Goyito" Pérez

Full disclosure: I actually occasionally train with Goyito at San Diego Combat Academy/10th Planet San Diego.  We're not his primary gym, and I've only ever rolled with him once (he crushed me), but he is still someone I've trained with and I want to get that out of the way.

That said, I don't think many people will disagree with me putting him here. Goyito has been in the UFC for a couple years and he seems to now be finding his rhythm.  In 2016 he beat both Francisco Rivera and Felipe Arantes in fights where he showed not only promise, but also flair (that luchador mask tho) and a sense of excitement that makes his rise all the more exciting to watch.

Goyito has a frenetic pace, agile footwork, and good feints.  He is primarily a puncher, but he's good at mixing in a number of other MMA tools as well, particularly an impressively strong inside leg kick, solid single leg takedowns, and the occasional intercepting knee.  He also isn't afraid to use the occasional unconventional kick or jiujitsu transition, either.

He can tend to neglect to use head movement or other defensive maneuvers after landing a combination, as well as get into wild swinging exchanges where strategy is thrown out the window.  Still, he is young (only about a month and a half older than me), and he can either learn to fix those gaps or incorporate them into his gameplan moving forward.  It'll be exciting to see what he does in 2017.

MMA FIGHTER I'D LIKE TO SEE BOUNCE BACK: Cain Velasquez

Unfortunately I do not train with Cain Velasquez.  After winning the heavyweight championship from Australopithecus Lesnar-ensus and having an epic trilogy with the then-consensus number two heavyweight in the world, Junior Dos Santos, Velasquez has had a bumpy road.  He came back from an almost two year injury-induced layoff to face Fabricio Werdum in June of 2015 and lost the title to him.  In July of last year, over a year removed from his loss to Werdum thanks to yet more injuries, Cain fought Travis Browne and looked like the Cain Velasquez of old.

Velasquez was due to face Fabricio Werdum in a rematch a couple months after the Browne fight, but that ended up not happening.  I'll give you one guess as to why.

A healthy, functioning Cain Velasquez is a marvel to behold.  He has more cardio than anyone else in the heavyweight division, he strategically mixes up his striking with his wrestling perfectly, he has way better striking technique than most other wrestling-based MMA fighters, his ability to close distance is insane, and I'm pretty sure what he can do to his opponent when he pins them against a cage should be banned by the UN Council on Human Rights.  Cain Velasquez is, so far, the only heavyweight who could seriously challenge Fedor Emelianenko's claim to the title of Most Skilled Heavyweight Ever.

Because of his constant injuries, though, Velasquez hasn't built a record to challenge Fedor's.  He has beat some truly elite heavyweights, but his career has been far too inconsistent.  If he avoids injury in 2017, and is able to beat Werdum then win the title from Stipe Miocic, his record will further match his potential.  But really, win or lose, I'd just be happy to see a heavyweight division with an active Cain Velasquez.

MALE MMA FIGHTER: Stipe Miocic

This spot was between two contenders: Stipe and Conor McGregor. Honestly, it probably should go to McGregor because he became the champion of the lightweight division on top of the featherweight division, but like with Run the Jewels above, I don't like making the same pick two years in a row.  Also, while Conor McGregor did indeed defeat Jose Aldo last year, he has not defended the featherweight belt since and has implied he has no plans to do so, hence being stripped of it recently.  At this point he's basically just the lightweight champion.

Enough about McGregor, though.  Stipe Miocic had an excellent year.  He fought three times in 2016, which is impressive for a heavyweight, capturing either Fight of the Night or Performance of the night in all three of his matches, which is impressive for any weight.  After dispatching of the always dangerous Mark Hunt in 2015, Miocic's first fight in 2016 was against Andrei Arlovski, who was on a six fight win streak with wins over the likes of Bigfoot Silva, Frank Mir, and Travis Browne.  Arlovski looked to be on the verge of a title shot himself, but Miocic put a stop to that with his deity-like fists.  After knocking out Arlovski, Miocic fought for the title and knocked out Werdum after he rushed Miocic without any thought to his defense.

Many heavyweight champions lose their belt in their first title defense.  Not Miocic.  He defended his belt against Alistair Overeem, who is more minotaur than man.  To quote internet writer Seanbaby, Overeem "looks like someone at Marvel comics drew a man genetically engineered to fuck your girlfriend."  As someone who is also a world class kickboxer in addition to being a world class MMA fighter, he fights like that as well.  Yet thanks to careful planning and excellent boxing from Miocic, he was able to overcome trouble in the beginning and knockout Overeem to defend his title.

Miocic is an exciting fighter with good hands, a strong chin, and top level conditioning for a heavyweight.  It'll be a pleasure to see him continue to fight into 2017, hopefully against the winner of Fabricio Werdum and Cain Velasquez if that rematch can happen soon.  Junior Dos Santos, Alistair Overeem, Mark Hunt, and others can't be counted out, either.  The heavyweight division is perhaps at its most exciting since the days of Pride, and I can't wait to see what unfolds.

FEMALE MMA FIGHTER: Joanna Jędrzejczyk

Beating Joanna Jędrzejczyk in a fight is like trying to pronounce her last name: very few people in the world, if any, can do it.  Joanna came to MMA as a six time world champion and four time European champion in Muay Thai, with an overall record of twenty seven wins and two losses.  She's as skilled in the art of the eight limbs as the United States CIA is skilled in the art of overthrowing democracies to install dictatorships.

Some of Joanna's best moves are a left jab-right cross-right kick combo, leg kicks in general, and a badass clinch game.  She also has outstanding cardio and evasive skills, able to make sure she is just out of range for her opponent's attacks.  Her only seeming flaw is that she sometimes backs straight up when attacked instead of circling out, but considering she likes to set up her devastating clinch when her back is to the fence, her backing up hasn't cost her much trouble so far.

She defended her belt twice in 2016, looking like a Muay Thai textbook while doing so.  She had some moments of looking mortal against wrestler Claudia Gadelha and fellow Muay Thai fighter Karolina Kowalkiewicz, having to deal with the former's takedowns and the latter's excellent jabs, crosses, and kicks, but she still won each fight handily.  In the end, Jędrzejczyk emerged largely unscathed and continued to cement her status as one of the top MMA strikers in the world.

A quick shout out is also due here for Amanda Nunes, whom I almost gave this spot to.  After beating Valentina Shevchenko (who would later go on to beat last year's pick for female fighter of the year, Holy Holm, proving she is no joke herself), Nunes fought Meisha Tate for the women's bantamweight championship.  She threw a combo that looked like something from a Dragon Ball Z episode and got a rear naked choke after following Tate to the ground.  When Ronda Rousey came back and got an immediate title shot, the UFC promoters seemed to forget Nunes existed and only promoted Rousey.  Nunes didn't seem to have any fucks to give about the UFC's plans, though.  She dispatched Rousey easily.

The fact that Amanda Nunes, with such an impressive 2016, didn't get fighter of the year shows how fantastic women's MMA is getting.  They still have some catching up to the men's divisions when it comes to popularity, but when it comes to excitement, they're doing just fine.

MMA FIGHT: Robbie Lawler vs Carlos Condit

There were a lot of great fights in 2016, but for me, the best match happened on only the 2nd day of the year.  Due to a series of injuries for other contenders, Carlos Condit was supposed to fight Robbie Lawler for the title in late 2015, but due to a thumb injury for Lawler it was pushed to UFC 195.  With twenty one of Robbie Lawler's total twenty seven career victories coming by knockout or submission, and twenty eight of Condit's thirty wins also coming by way of finish, this was set to be a hell of a fight.

The thing about fights that sound exciting in theory is that they can be disappointingly boring when they happen for realz.  This was not one of those fights.  Robbie Lawler's high level MMA boxing and Carlos Condit's high level MMA kickboxing clashed wonderfully.  Lawler used his excellent gauging of distance, headwork, jab, and counter punches while Condit used awkward but effective movement, all eight of the Muay Thai weapons, and elusive footwork.  The results was one of my favorite fights of all time.

What's great about this fight is that it was a fight that could satisfy both casual fans and educated fans alike.  Brawls like Brian Stann vs Wanderlei Silva (or really any Wanderlei fight) and Dan Henderson vs Shogun Rua are exciting to watch in a primal, high-octane way.  I love those sorts of fights.  I also love watching strategy and high level technique play out too, though.  Sometimes those things play out in a way that isn't accessible to the casual fan, but not here.  Condit and Lawler used moves from their toolboxes in a way that could satisfy fans of all levels of MMA understanding.

The fight was close, as many truly great fights are.  Most people agree Condit won rounds one and four while Lawler won rounds two and five.  The only controversial round was round three, where Carlos Condit landed more significant strikes but Lawler seemed to more damage with his.  The fight ended up going to Lawler in a controversial split decision, despite the fact that many scored it for Condit.  I personally scored it for Condit myself.  Despite my own disagreement with the decision, however, the fight was close, and really either fighter could have been given the decision.

In the end, though, everyone won.  Condit and Lawler both gave fantastic performances worth being proud of, which gave them Fight of the Night honors and a nice bonus by the UFC.  Fans got an all-time great fight.  The media got something controversial to cover.  What more could any of us ask for?

SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY: GK-PID

Multicellular life isn't a topic we explicitly think about often.  Sure, sometimes we'll pay mind to the fact we are basically self-aware apes and that life as we know it is a pretty kewl thing we can take for granted, but it's easy to take not only our existence but the existence of every plant and animal on Earth for granted as well.  It can be easy to think that the way things are was always our destiny, that evolution has always been marching us toward this inevitable course of the birth of humanity.

Really, though, it was dumb luck.

Like my pick for fight of the year, my pick for scientific discovery of the year came along only shortly after the beginning of 2016.  On January 7th, a professor of ecology and evolution named Joe Thorton published a study showing how multicellular life came to be through the "protein scaffold" known as guanylate kinase protein interaction domain (GK-PID).  I'm not gonna pretend I know what that means, but the condensed, simple version is that a genetic mutation a billion years ago caused the GK-PID to develop in a way that allowed for the development of organisms with more than one cell.  Because of the better genetic diversity, multicellular organisms were able to do well in natural selection and continue existing and branching out.  A billion years later, through an incredibly slow and erratic and luck-based process, here we are.

I have no idea what the practical implications of this study are, or if there even are any.  It's incredible, however, to know that we can trace there very development of complex life itself through advanced scientific methods.  It's further testament to what we can do as a species when we decide to think scientifically and work together and build knowledge that later generations will build on top of.  If we can figure out where life as we know it came from, what else can we do?

SCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENT: Science Helps Quadriplegic Man Play Guitar Hero

Welp, apparently this is what else we can do.  This is so cool.  Who would have guessed that when we're not busy enforcing violence and inequality on each other we're capable of such incredible and life-giving feats?


BULLSHIT NEWS STORY: Lottery Winner Shitting on Boss's Desk

Usually for this category I choose a bullshit news story that tells us something concerning about the way we view the world, but not this time.  When I first saw the story about a lottery winner repaying her shitty boss with a literal shit on his desk, I felt a sort of vicarious euphoria that anyone else who has ever worked under a terrible boss or manager instantly understands.  The article spread across the internet like wildfire.  If what I saw from friends and loved ones who reposted was any indication, I imagine most people watching around the world had a feeling similar to mine.

Unfortunately, the story was fake.  The vicarious delight and instant sympathy we felt with the woman was a lie.

Or was it?  Despite the falseness of the news story, it did create an immediate solidarity with the woman and those who shared this article, which is very, very rare to see happen so unanimously on the internet.  When denizens of the internet send non-stop hate mail to Youtubers who have slightly different movie or video game tastes than them, or harass journalists who don't see eye to eye with them, it's fascinating to see so many corners of the internet so united.

It's a nice reminder that, at the end of the day, we are all human beings and we do have common experiences that can give us empathy for people in similar situations.  And is there anything more relatable than working under a shitty boss?  The effect of this video on me was quite strong, and I haven't worked for a shitty boss for almost six years.  It's an almost universal experience for anyone who has ever had to work any job in the history of ever.  So thank you, viral video, for bringing us together for a moment, even if your story turned out to be as full of shit as this imaginary boss's desk. 

ACTUAL NEWS STORY: Trump's Election

So, uhh, holy shit, right?  At the beginning of this year it didn't even seem likely Trump would win the primaries and become the Republican candidate, let alone win the election.  Like always, there were people afterward who said they "knew" exactly how things would play out all along.  Let's allow a moment for a collective eye roll toward those types of people.

Regardless of who did or did not know how everything would shake out, Donald Trump won the presidential election.  Of course, every one and their mother had an analysis of Trump's victory.  Was it because Americans wanted to symbolically throw a brick through the window, voting for Trump as a way to give the finger to Washington even if they didn't care for Trump as a person?  Was it sexism and/or racism?  Was it the culmination of the urban vs rural divide in the US?  Was it the result of a broken election system?  Was it because of low voter turnout?  Was it because Clinton couldn't capture working class whites?  Was it the beginning of the decay of late stage capitalism?  Chances are, if you ask ten different people why Trump won you'll get ten different answers.

The thing about each of those answers is that you can find ample evidence to support or challenge any of them.  That's because of one simple truth: there is no one simple answer.  Politics is an extraordinarily complicated process, and one overarching narrative could never explain why all hundred and twenty nine million people voted in this election, with just under sixty three million voting for Trump (compared to almost sixty six million for Clinton).  Now we have as a president a man who bragged about sexually assaulting women, who proposed a ban on Muslims entering the United States, who called Mexican immigrants rapists, and who wants to re-enter the nuclear arms race.  It's gonna be a tough four years.

There is a silver lining, however.  Because of how openly bigoted Trump has been in his campaigning, people are mobilizing in ways they never did under Obama.  This is despite Obama being responsible for numerous deaths of innocent civilians in the Middle East with our War on Terror; leaving behind US military conflict in seven countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia for those keeping track at home); deporting a record number of undocumented immigrants from the US (yes, more than Bush); expanding the surveillance state; and more.  Because he is much more inclusive and diplomatic in his rhetoric, however, Obama did not get nearly the same pushback Trump is already getting.  Clinton's administration would have been a continuation of these types of policies, which would probably have also gone unchallenged.

Right after Trump's election many took to the streets, and it looks like the same thing will be happening in two days for his inauguration.  People are getting active and mobilizing in a way this country hasn't seen in a long time.  If we are able to properly channel this discontent and challenge those in power, Republican or Democrat, we will not only be okay but possibly even manage advances in economic, human, and environmental rights.  The future is in our hands.

MEME OF THE YEAR: Arthur's Fist Meme

What is it about a meme that makes it good?  I'm no expert, but I'd say versatility is one of the most important traits.  The Arthur Fist Meme fits that criterion excellently.  It was great not only seeing how many relatable memes could be churned out with this template, as well as hilariously specific ones, but also seeing the creative ways some people subverted the meme, such as the one above that flips the image so that it appears to be Arthur's left hand instead of his right.

That's what's great about memes.  Say what you will about some particular ones, but overall they give us another medium for experimenting with different, creative forms of humor and social commentary with things as simple as a picture with words.  In the same way that most stories have common templates and are made special by their details, so too are memes.  May our days forever be as dank as our memes.

VIDEO OF THE YEAR: Think and Feel Like an Editor

If you've ever wanted to know more about the technical aspects of film making without taking a film class, you owe it to yourself to watch the Every Frame a Painting channel on Youtube.  The above video is about editing, which is what the creator of the series Tony Zhou does for a living.  It's a fantastic video about an aspect of film making we don't usually think about: how editors decide how to take footage and edit it together into a coherent movie.  It's eye-opening.

Most of Zhou's videos involve him choosing a director or actor and focusing on a specific thing that the director or actor does well.  Other favorite videos of mine are his videos about Akira Kurosawa and movement, Jackie Chan and action comedy, Michael Bay and "Bayhem", and Martin Scorcese and silence.  Check them out for a quality film education that doesn't cost a dime.  Especially if you have dreams of working in film yourself.

PHOTO OF THE YEAR: Muhammad Ali's Funeral

There has never been a celebrity death that hit me as hard as Muhammad Ali's.  Not even close.  Muhammad Ali was many things to many people, and that's what was so wonderful about him.  A lot of people will spend their entire lives pursuing greatness in one aspect of life, and a few will even achieve it thanks to incredible amounts of hard work and good fortune.  Ali, however, managed to achieve greatness in multiple ways.  Very, very few people are able to pull that off.

Of course, Ali's biggest legacy is in boxing.  Now, while many people call him The Greatest for his achievements in the ring, there are others who say he was a good boxer but not quite the best.  Joe Louis, Sugar Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong, even Ali's former opponent and coach, "The Old Mongoose" himself, Archie Moore.  Now, whether or not Muhammad Ali is as good as those men can be debated until the heat death of the universe, but he still reigned as heavyweight champion for an incredible amount of time and has names like Floyd Patterson, Sonny Liston, George Foreman, and Joe Frazier on his list of wins.  It's indisputable that he was one of the greatest boxers of all time.

His record could have been ever better if he hadn't been stripped of his title in 1967, which brings us to another way in which he was great.  When Ali was drafted to fight in the Vietnam War he could have agreed, gone over, half assed his service with a bunch of photo opps, and come back.  Instead, he refused to fight for the US.  He made no bones about why, either.  As he said when talking about his refusal to go:

“Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go 10,000 miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on Brown people in Vietnam while so-called Negro people in Louisville are treated like dogs and denied simple human rights? No I’m not going 10,000 miles from home to help murder and burn another poor nation simply to continue the domination of white slave masters of the darker people the world over. (...)  If I thought the war was going to bring freedom and equality to 22 million of my people they wouldn’t have to draft me, I’d join tomorrow. I have nothing to lose by standing up for my beliefs. So I’ll go to jail, so what? We’ve been in jail for 400 years."

Ali was a fighter both inside and outside the ring, and when he fought outside the ring, it was for justice.  He would continue to be a figure for that same spirit of justice, peace, and love throughout his life.  He supported the Palestinian people, marched in support of Native American rights, talked a suicidal man out of jumping to his death, negotiated the release of US hostages in Iraq, worked as UN Messenger of Peace in Afghanistan in 2002, and more.  THAT is what made Muhammad Ali "The Greatest" in my eyes.  If it only came down to boxing, my choice would be Pernell "Sweet Pea" Whitaker.  But Ali was more than just a boxer.  Much more.

The world is sadder for his passing, but was lucky to have a man like him while it did.  Rest In Power, Champ.

BADASS OF THE YEAR: Standing Rock Water Protectors

I'm sure I don't need to tell you about the Native American resistance against the North Dakota Access Pipeline.  What's impressive about this story, though, is that mainstream media absolutely did not cover it until it got such a big focus on it through social media that they essentially had no choice but to finally do so.  When they did, very little contextual background was given in their coverage of the conflict, which often made the protestors look like the aggressors (but what's new, right?).

Still the water protectors stood against the police that were protecting the big oil companies.  Even when winter weather came upon the camp and temperatures became freezing, they stood.  Even when police used water cannons in those freezing temperatures.  Public support swelled.  Indigenous people and allies from around the world offered symbolic, financial, material, and people support.  Of course, Obama and others in power did nothing at first.  Eventually, however, Obama temporarily halted the construction of the pipeline.  Later, the Army Corp of Engineers finally decided on December 4th not to grant permits to build the oil pipeline.

Now, the battle still isn't over.  Many water protectors remained after December 4th, suspicious of the oil company, and it looks like conflict has indeed resurfaced.  There's still more work to be done.

Still, the water protectors at Standing Rock have won in a lot of big ways.  First and foremost, they've united against private industry and the state that protects it, preventing them from harming the land.  They've mobilized a global network of Indigenous and environment rights advocates.  They seized media attention by sheer force of grassroots action and support.  They've shown us that, in an era where cynicism is easy to give into, daring to fight and win for peoples' rights is still possible.  Not just possible, either, but necessary.

That's what will get us through the years of Trump.  That's what got us through the years of Obama.  The years of Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan.  No matter what politician comes into office, we have people power.  That's what matters most.

The Complex Legacy of Fidel Castro

Last night, almost sixty years since the 1959 Cuban Revolution, Fidel Castro passed away at ninety years old.  Many people are celebrating his death, many people are mourning it.  A lot of news sources based either in the United States or countries close to the United States have painted an oversimplified picture of an oppressive dictator.  Others have romanticized and emphasized his positive accomplishments.  Most sources will ignore a lot of the important historical nuances and misconceptions that don't fit into either a good guy or bad guy narrative.

My goal here is to paint a detailed and nuanced picture of Fidel Castro and his leadership of Cuba.  As a scholar of  modern Latin American history, I think it's crucial we have a strong understanding of a leader who was arguably the most influential Latin American leader of the 20th Century.  As a history scholar in general, I think it's always important to educate people about historical figures without using a hero or villain narrative.

What I will do here is give a brief background on Cuban history, then a quick overview of Fidel's part in the revolution and its aftermath, then summarize a few key parts of Cuba under Fidel.  I hope this post is helpful.  Enjoy!

The Platt Amendment

The end of the 1800s was a time of great hardship, but also great mustaches.

In 1898 the Spanish-American War officially popped off between Spain and the United States.  It was a brief war that only lasted from April 21st to August 13th, when the US won.  It marked not only the emergence of the US as an unofficial empire in nearby Latin America, but the end of Spain as a serious colonial power.  Part of the reason the US gave for fighting was that it was trying to "free" Cuba and other Spanish holdings.

In a tragic foreshadowing of future affairs, Cuba did not really have say in the post-war talks.  Cuba was freed from being a Spanish colony, but became a "protectorate" (basically, colony) of the United States.  In 1901 Cuba was forced to integrate the Platt Amendment into their constitution, which forbade it from entering into treaties which "compromise Cuban independence" (which would be judged, of course, by the US), guaranteed US interests on the island, and gave the US authority to overthrow any Cuban leaders that it saw fit.  This last clause wasn't put there for show- the US intervened in Cuba multiple times from 1901 to the time of the Cuban Revolution in 1959.

Fulgencio Batista, Castro's Predecessor

The man who Castro would overthrow, seen here totally pulling off that hat.

Fulgencio Batista emerged as a popular figure in the Cuban military in Platt Amendment Cuba.  In 1933, he led a coup with other reformist officers known as the Revolt of the Sergeants against then president Gerardo Machado.  Machado was yet another in a long line of presidents who had a blend of US-backed democracy and authoritarianism.  Like most presidents of that time period, Machado had promised to modernize and improve infrastructure, education, and water access while challenging US dominance.  Not to blow anyone's mind, but this politician didn't follow through on his promises.  Crazy, right?

After the overthrow of Machado, Batista gained control of the military and was one of the most influential figures in the temporary coup government during the rest of the 30s, though he didn't officially run for office until 1940, when he ran for the Cuban presidency.  He was elected by a wide margin.  People from groups ranging from US-friendly economic elites to the Communist Party of Cuba supported him.  The Cuban Constitution he helped establish in 1940 was actually pretty progressive for the time.  It included labor rights, greater voting rights, furthered the system of checks and balances in the Cuban government, and even introduced the idea of communal rights in addition to individual ones.  He also had an authoritarian side, but generally his presidency went well by the standards of the time.

His term ended in 1944 and he went to live in the United States.  He came back in 1952 to run for president for the second time, but was a distant third place in the polls.  That's when things got ugly.

After it became clear he wouldn't win, Batista launched another coup to overthrow the government in Cuba on March 10th, 1952.  He installed himself as "president" of Cuba, but he was the "president" in the same way that Buffalo Wild Wings sells "buffalo" wings.  Despite this, President Eisenhower still recognized Batista's regime on March 27th.  One of Batista's first acts was to suspend the very 1940 Constitution he helped create.  During this period of dictatorship he suppressed civil liberties, outlawed strikes, censored the media, and got rid of anyone who opposed him.  He also had extensive ties to US corporations and organized crime, who helped him establish power at the expense of the Cuban people.

Even JFK himself would later criticize Eisenhower for supporting Batista and his human rights abuses, including being responsible for the death of around 20,000 Cubans (which is too many people no matter what country you're in, but extra devastating when it's in a tiny country with a population as small as Cuba's).

Fidel's Role in The Cuban Revolution

"Look, all I'm saying is that Batista is kind of a tool."

I'm not going to spend much time here, but one thing that can't be emphasized enough is that Fidel Castro was not the head leader of the Cuban Revolution.  He was definitely one of its biggest stars, but his regime's narrative that he and his homies in the Sierra Maestra Mountains were the only true revolutionary force in 1959 is bullshit.  There were many different revolutionary factions.  This will become important later.

Castro was a lawyer and activist who was running for a local office in the 1952 elections when Batista overthrew the government and ended the semi-democracy that the island had in place.  Castro, to put it mildly, was not a fan.  On July 26th, 1953, Castro lead a group of people to attack the Moncanda Army Barracks.  They were stopped and arrested, but were eventually released after intense pressure from the Cuban people.  Castro and his collaborators, now called the 26th of July Movement because of the date they attacked the Moncanda Barracks, left to Mexico City and continued to plot against Batista.  In December of 1956 they returned to Cuba by boat.

Castro and his crew, which Che Guevara had joined in Mexico City, went to the Sierra Maestra Mountains to continue their fight.  The 26th of July Movement was one of the most visible forces in the Cuban Revolution, which had fully popped off by then.  They were not the only fighting force, however.  Others fought in the countryside and many in the cities as well.  On New Year's Day, 1959, the revolutionary forces had won.

A New Cuba

"We won!  We'll never have to worry about human rights abuses again!"

Through a combination of popular support, crafty political maneuvering, and good ol' fashioned repression tactics, Fidel Castro emerged as the leader of Cuba after the 1959 Revolution.  Fidel, as a leader, actually didn't have a strict ideology.  He leaned socialist, but was no ideologue.  This was tricky, as he found himself in a complex geopolitical situation in the Cold War.  He also found himself in the middle of two camps within his own clique: radical, pro-revolution figures like Che Guevara made up one side and pro-Soviet, more bureaucratic figures like Fidel's brother Raul made up the other.  From day one Fidel tried to accommodate both, but over the years his position on this spectrum shifted quite often.

The US relationship with Castro was shaky, but cautiously optimistic at first.  They really didn't know much about him.  After his victory, Castro went to the United States to meet with politicians and citizens.  After meeting with Castro, then-vice president Richard Nixon concluded Fidel Castro was naive about communism and didn't understand its dangers, but probably not a communist himself.  There will still tensions, however, which were made worse when Fidel instituted land reform in Cuba, nationalized the telephone industry, and re-opened trade relations with the Soviet Union after they had been halted in 1952.  Awkward!

The US responded by cutting sugar imports.  Cuba responded by nationalizing more industries and moving closer to the Soviet Union to make up for the lack of trade with the US.  This set off a geopolitical pissing contest between Eisenhower and Castro where one side would distance themselves further from the other, resulting in the other doing the same.  This downward spiral led to Cuba nationalizing foreign (basically all US) holdings in the country in July of 1960 and the US cutting sugar imports from Cuba by 95% two days after.

Castro's Cuba

Castro loved two things: revolution and cigars.

Castro's rule of Cuba is, to put it mildly, quite a source of controversy.  I'm not going to spend much time talking about his negatives, not because they're not important, but because media based in the United States and countries close to the US have already done a thorough job of doing so.  Still, it's worth repeating.  Castro was only a fan of free speech as long as it didn't criticize him- in other words, he wasn't really a fan of free speech at all.  He crushed dissent and had a lot of political prisoners.  It should also be said, however, that a lot of this is common after a revolution, including the American Revolution.

 
Equally undeniable as his dickishness, however, was how much he improved living conditions for Cubans.  Healthcare and literacy campaigns in the countryside drastically reduced disease and illiteracy among some of the most neglected parts of Cuba.  Even in 2014, the director of the World Health Organization praised Cuba for having a "model" healthcare system.  Today the literacy rate of Cuba is actually higher than that of the United States, 99.7% for Cuba and about 99% even for the US, and exponentially higher than the literacy rate in the comment section on Youtube.  Castro's economic policies also virtually eliminated extreme poverty (ie, the kind of poverty you see in Feed the Children advertisements), though less severe poverty still very much exists as it does basically everywhere.

Cuba's healthcare is so good, in fact, that it uses health care as part of its foreign policy.  Called "medical diplomacy" by people much smarter than me, they send doctors abroad in exchange for trade (such as Venezuelan oil) or political goodwill.  When natural disasters strike other countries, Cuba often sends more doctors and supplies than almost any other country- in fact, during the ebola outbreak back in 2014, they sent more doctors than any other country.

It is worth reiterating that Castro accomplished all this in a small island country with US hostility, including the economic embargo and multiple assassination attempts.  At the same time, it's also worth reiterating all the repression of his own people he partook in.

Castro's Cuba and the Soviet Union

"Hey lil' Khrushchev lemme whisper in ya ear, tell ya something that you might like to hear."

Cuba and the Soviet Union were, of course, close during the Cold War.  A misconception, however, is that Cuba was a puppet of the Soviets.  Sometimes when we see smaller regimes linked to larger regimes, we make the mistake of thinking of the smaller regime as a mere puppet of the larger one.  Really, Cuba and the Soviet Union were less a perfectly coordinated puppet-puppeteer duo and more a dysfunctional couple who stayed together out of convenience.

As mentioned earlier, there were two camps in Castro's Cuba: the pro-revolutionary side headed by Che and the pro-Soviet side led by Raul.  Fidel listened to different sides at different times.  In the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, for example, landed Fidel on the side of Che's revolutionary camp.  Fidel, who had been left out of the US-Soviet negotiations, feared that removing the missile bases in Cuba would lead to more US attempts to overthrow him.  The agreement struck between the US and Soviets did include the promise from the US that they would not interfere in Cuba's affairs.  The problem was that Fidel had, y'know, literally seen the US carry out regime overthrow in Cuba and other Latin American countries already, so he didn't trust the US's pledge.

This led to Castro more openly criticizing the Soviet Union and supporting revolutions abroad even when the Soviets opposed the decision, which they almost always opposed in Latin America.  For those wondering why the SU didn't support certain revolutions, even communist ones, remember that they were an empire before anything else.  They did not want to risk everything by pissing off the US to the point of war.  They may have used communist rhetoric about abolishing global capitalism, but they often did not support the Cuban export of revolution, especially when it was in Latin America, which was recognized as the US's backyard.  Castro and Guevara went about spread revolution during this time anyway since, after the Cuban Missile Crisis, Castro felt the Soviets did not have his back.

A few years later, however, a wacky thing happened.  In 1967, Castro promised that in 1970 the Cuban Revolution would reach another step in achieving unity through hard work by producing ten million tons of sugar.  Its annual production was usually about six million tons in a good year.  During those three years between 1967 to 1970 Cubans mobilized, working extra hours, redirecting resources from other industries, and mobilizing workers from outside the country to help out.  Even Fidel worked four hours a day in the fields.

The result was a disaster.  About seven and a half million tons were produced, which is incredibly impressive but fell short of the ten million ton mark, hurting the morale of the country.  It was probably a good thing they didn't actually reach ten million tons, though, as the excess sugar Cuba produced reduced global sugar prices and hurt the sugar business, aka the biggest industry on the island.  The fact that so many resources and workers from other industries had added to the sugar harvest cause meant other industries suffered, too.  Basically, it was an economic clusterfuck.

Guess how many times Cuba criticized the Soviet Union or went against their wishes during the resulting economic downturn?  This up and down pattern defined the Cuban-Soviet relationship for as long as the Soviet Union existed.

Castro's Cuba and The Third World

What I would've given to see a buddy cop movie starring these two.

The victory of the Cuban Revolution sent shock waves through Latin America, many of its citizens having its own problems with the US's role in their home countries.  A small island nation repelled the Yankees?!  It was like the Rebels overthrowing the Empire in Star Wars.  "Fidelismo" was the name given to the optimism Fidel's victory inspired in a sizeable number of Latin Americans.

Meanwhile, to reiterate what I said above, Fidel felt that the Soviet Union turned their back on Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis.  Because of this, Cuba decided it wanted to support revolution abroad so that it could create "multiple Cubas" that would make it harder for the US to single out and target Cuba(1).  In other words, Cuba didn't just support revolution out of idealism- it saw it as the key to its own survival.

Initial revolutionary movements supported by Cuba didn't do very well.  This is because Castro and company simply bought way too much into their own hype.  Che Guevara firmly believed that his and Fidel's 26th of July Movement had been the key component in the Cuban Revolution.  Because of that, he coined the "foco" theory- the idea that a small band of guerillas in the countryside could ignite a spark of revolution that would spread everywhere else.

Considering that isn't even how the real Cuban Revolution played out, it didn't work out too well anywhere else either.  It didn't play out well in the African movements they intervened in (most of which happened with \out Soviet knowledge) (1), and it certainly didn't play out well for Che in in Bolivia.

Cuba seemed to learn its lesson after Che's death in 1967, however, and decided to pick who it supported more carefully.  Instead of recklessly jumping in and trying to spread revolution where there wasn't already meaningful calls for one, or joining a liberation movement when it barely had any membership or substantial support, Cuba figured out it'd be a good idea to, y'know, join movements that were already showing promise and momentum.  This lead to great success, with Cuba helping Angola, among others, achieve independence and defend it against apartheid South African invaders.

This military defeat of apartheid South Africa also helped weaken its government.  According to Nelson Mandela, aka That Guy Pretty Much Everyone In The World Agrees Was Good, this also showed South Africans that the apartheid government wasn't invincible and helped give morale to the internal South African movement against it.  Castro's regime itself opposed apartheid and supported Mandela's African National Congress.  It is worth noting that Ronald Reagan was one of apartheid's biggest supporters.

In victory, Nelson Mandela had this to say about Castro: "The Cuban people hold a special place in the hearts of the people of Africa. The Cuban internationalists have made a contribution to African independence, freedom, and justice unparalleled for its principled and selfless character."

Conclusion

The present state of things, though we'll see what wacky antics ensue when Trump comes in.

To say this post just scratches the surface is an understatement.  There is so much more to be said about Cuban policies in both the domestic and international arena.  Entire books cover single negative or positive aspects of the Castro regime, as well as certain aspects that don't fit into a good/bad narrative.

No doubt people who view Castro only as a hero or a monster will have a problem with this post.  That's not even an attack on these people, either- Castro's regime had a huge impact on people all over the world.  Some people's lives have been made much better thanks to Castro.  Some people's lives much worse.  When talking about history, it's crucial to remember the human impact.

Usually this is where I end with some sort of main point.  Instead, though, I will leave you with some questions.

Does Fidel Castro's improvement of the livelihood of most Cubans justify the severe methods of repression he practiced?  Did the fact that his support of anti-colonial liberation movements was rooted in self-preservation mean that this support was selfish, or was it still noble?  Does the US deserve to point fingers at Cuba's human rights abuses when it has its own extensive history of supporting regimes with far worse human rights abuses?  On the other hand, does that mean Fidel's human rights abuses should be ignored because other countries can be just as bad?  How complicit was Fidel in the human suffering inflicted by the Soviet Union after aligning so closely with it?  As the leader of a small island nation, did he have a choice?  What would've happened if cooler heads had prevailed and the US and Cuba hadn't drifted apart?  Would Cuba's list of good and bad look as it does today?

Just some food for thought.  Thanks for reading!

(1)This idea, as well as my information about Cuba's involvement in Africa, is primarily drawn from Piero Gleijeses's book "Conflicting Missions: Havana, Washington, and Africa, 1959-1976".  This book gives an excellent overview of Cuban assistance of anti-colonial liberation movements in Africa.  Incidentally, Piero Gleijeses might just be the historian with the best works covering Cold War Latin America.

Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind and Active Nonviolence

Handling nonviolence in a work of fiction is tricky.  In settings where characters are confronted with violence, how do you integrate the idea of nonviolence in a way that is compelling?  More often than not, the subject is approached in one of two ways.  Either a character engages in a passive nonviolence, where they become passive actors who refuse to engage in confrontation, or they extol the virtues of nonviolence while still engaging in violence.  Either of these can be interesting when handled well, but it's a shame there is such a limited scope in ways that most entertainment deals with violence.

There is another way, however.  The Hayao Miyazaki film Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind features a protagonist, Nausicaa, who has her own approach to nonviolence.  She engages in nonviolence throughout the entire movie, save for one scene.  Rather than her nonviolence being a passive act, however, her brand of nonviolence is an active one.  This post will discuss and analyze what I mean by active nonviolence, and how this challenges us to think about the subject in ways that other films that advocate "nonviolence" are not able to do.

MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD.

Who needs violence when you have an awesome air glider?

Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind does not take place in a happy world.  A thousand years before the start of the film, the Earth was devastated thanks to humanity's constant need to go to war with itself.  The land is now covered in a toxic jungle that continues to spread over the land, destroying all human settlements it comes into contact with.  It is in this setting that we see different groups of people engage in a desperate, often violent quest for survival that doesn't have clearly defined "bad" guys, a common theme in Miyazaki's works.

Our protagonist here is Nausicaa, the princess of the Valley of the Wind (gotta love straight to the point movie titles).  Despite the human ugliness going on around her, Nausicaa refuses to act violently.  Unlike most characters who choose nonviolence, however, her brand of nonviolence isn't to passively sit around and refuse to engage in what is going on around her.  Rather, she bravely puts herself in the middle of the turmoil anyway.  She takes as many risks and is just as much a part of the action as anyone else.  This is what I will call "active nonviolence", where the character is ready to actively engage in what's going on and continue pushing forward nonviolently.  Even in the face of danger.

The movie does a great job of establishing Nausicaa as a character based in active nonviolence right away.  When she sees a smoke signal in the distance and goes to find out someone is being chased by a giant insect, she decides neither to avoid the confrontation nor try to harm the insect until it runs away out of fear.  Rather, she runs straight in and uses her ability to sooth the insects to deescalate the conflict.  She is very much in danger the whole time, but that doesn't stop her.  She displays the same amount of bravery and determination as any other action hero you can think of- if not more- and she does it without resorting to violence.

What's good, other action blockbusters?

The rest of the movie shows her continually pushing forward on a path of active nonviolence.  She guides the bugs from the crashed Tolmekian airship back to the jungle instead of fighting them, she stands on top of an airship to stop Prince Asbel of Pejite from firing on the Tolmekian airships (which she has every reason to want to see destroyed), she goes to save the very same Asbel when he crashes in the jungle and is being swarmed by the insects that he has upset, she rushes the (armed) Pejite's metal air balloon holding the baby ohmu as it fires upon her, she stops that same baby ohmu from stepping into the acid lake water by physically holding it back even at the expense of her own well-being, and she soothes the rage of the ohmu herd by calmly standing in from of them.  These are just some of the major examples.

So, we have active versus passive nonviolence, but what does it matter?  Well, in terms of both entertainment and philosophy, it actually means quite a bit.  The problem with more passive nonviolent characters is that it is hard to put them in chaotic situations where their nonviolence is engaging for an audience, and it can also be difficult to make it feel like there is truly something at stake because of the lack of urgency from that character.  If they're calmly standing around and avoiding confrontation, why should we care?  With Nausicaa, however, we are rarely left with a dull moment or without an idea of what exactly is at stake.  She charges forward at the same pace as any other character in an action movie, she is always proactively standing up for what she believes in, and her urgency in doing all of this subtly reminds us how much is on the line.

Beyond just entertainment, however, this movie allows us to think critically about exactly what nonviolence can achieve.  Even if it's an unfair sentiment, it's easy to call passively nonviolent people cowards and be done with it.  But what about those who participate in active nonviolence, those who put themselves in the middle of chaos while still refusing violence?  Revolutions for democracy and human rights have been won by nonviolence, like in Guatemala in 1944.

Guatemala's first democratically elected president,

Juan Jose Arevalo, basically the Lord Yupa of Guatemalan politics.

Having such a powerful, proactive representation of what nonviolence is capable of in characters like Nausicaa doesn't just make for compelling entertainment.  It challenges us to think what nonviolent action is able to achieve.  It challenges us to question when violence really is or isn't necessary.  If Nausicaa found a way to save her people from annihilation and stop all the different human factions from warring without harming anyone, and if 1944 Guatemala could overthrow dictator Jorge Ubico to install a democracy, what else can nonviolence do?

That's a question that's important to reflect on.  Most of us won't ever be involved in direct violence in our lives after high school, but violence is everywhere.  Our views on violence affect how we vote, how we relate to other people, how we understand the media we consume, how we raise our children.  There are ripple effects that are too significant for us to simply ignore violence, and our understanding of and relationship to it.  With characters like Nausicaa, we're challenged to think in a way that few other nonviolent protagonists can.

So thanks, Hayao Miyazaki, for creating a character that helps us think about our relationship with violence.  Hopefully more characters like Nausicaa continue to pop up in popular entertainment.  The stakes are too important for us to not have characters like her around.

Profiles of Badass Women: Gioconda Belli

In celebration of International Women's Day, I wanted to do a profile on a prominent mujer from history who I feel deserves more recognition and respect than they currently get.  Considering women are, and have always been, about 50% of the global population, that is no easy task.  To say there are many candidates for this post is a bit like saying aggravated assault is impolite, or that Zero Dark Thirty was overrated.  The statement is technically true, but does nothing to adequately convey just how true it is.

I look slight uncomfortable during torture scenes, and use non-torture methods

in addition to torture (which I do literally nothing to stop).  Woah, so much nuance!

In the end, I knew I had to go with a woman from Latin America.  Not because women in Latin America are more deserving than women from anywhere else, but because Latin America is my main area of study.  There aren't too many things I could say about Angela Davis or Malala Yousef that people more thoughtful and informed than me haven't already said.

Even still, choosing a single woman to write about from a region as vast and diverse as Latin America was a challenge.  There were many I wanted to choose.  The person whom I chose is only one example of a rich history of badass women in Latin American history.  Consider this post a small pathway to learning about more organizers, revolutionaries, writers, and other notable women from Latin America.

With all of that being said, the woman I chose to write about is Gioconda Belli.  Gioconda is a poet, novelist, revolutionary, and mother.  She fought in the Nicaraguan Revolution with the FSLN (Frente Sandinista de Liberacion Nacional, or Sandinista National Liberation Front), also known as the Sandinistas, against the Somoza dictatorship.

I came here to kick ass and write beautifully worded poems

that explore a wide spectrum of the human condition... and I'm all out of poems

First, a brief bit of background. Since I've already written about the Somoza dictatorship in my post about Immortal Technique lyrics and Latin America, I'll just copy what I have from there:

"Nicaragua gained its independence in 1821, but instability and harsh leadership were there in abundance.  Starting in 1909 the United States occupied Nicaragua, including stationing marines there in 1912 to protect US interests.  There was a lot of resentment and resistance from the majority of the Nicaraguan population during this occupation.  This included an armed resistance led by Augusto Cesar Sandino, who became a national hero of Nicaragua (and is still considered one to this day).

The occupation lasted until 1933.  At that point the United States withdrew, but established the National Guard, led by Anastasio Somoza Sr and trained by the US so that they would be loyal to US interests.  Soon after, Somoza ordered the assassination of Sandino in 1934 and came to power in a rigged election in 1937.  This launched the beginning of the Somoza Dynasty, which included Anastasio Somoza Sr and his two sons Luis and Anastasio Jr.

Their reign was of a right wing military dictatorship that were responsible for numerous human rights violations.  However, that didn't stop the United States from being extremely close to the Somozas.  In fact, when Anastasio Somoza Sr was shot in 1956, Eisenhower had his own medical staff flown out to treat Somoza.  Aww, besties!"

 

Alternatively, instead of that explanation, I could've just

conveyed how awful he was by showing you a picture of him with that mustache 

Basically, the Somoza Dynasty was the type of regime you'd see in a dystopian novel.

Gioconda Belli opposed the Somoza Dynasty, but she didn't have to do anything about it.  She wasn't one of the people living in the slums of the city or working the land out in the countryside.  She grew up in privilege, in an upper middle class suburb in Managua, the nation's capital.  Her parents were from high society.  In fact, long before becoming a revolutionary, Belli spent a lot of her early years resisting the conservative, high-society values she grew up around.

Her family didn't like the Somozas, but her parents didn't actually do anything to resist his regime.  This isn't to condemn them, because resisting a dictator who has a love for violent repression is easier said than done.  Belli grew up relatively shielded from the Somoza's violence, but still opposed the regime.

Above I mentioned that she was also a mother.  This was no random detail; it guided everything she did.  As she explained in her memoirs, after first meeting Sandinistas through her work, she first started working with them precisely because she was a mother.  She felt strongly that she owed it to her kids to fight for a better world, so that "[her daughter] wouldn't have to do the work that [she] was not willing to do"* in fighting the Somozas.  It was love that compelled Belli to become a revolutionary.

Look at these hooligans, trying to create a better world for their children!

Her transition towards becoming a revolutionary happened in tandem with her rise as a poet.  As she put it in her memoir: "Poetry was the result of exuberant, life-giving spirit.  Once I could assert my power and strength as a women I felt able to shake the impotence our dictatorship made me feel, with all the misery it had sown.  I could no longer feel that change was impossible."*

That's what makes her story noteworthy: how all of her identities intersected.  Her identity as a revolutionary grew alongside, and intertwined with, her identity as a woman, poet, and mother.  It's an idea that isn't new by any means, but beautifully stated by Belli throughout her memoir.

As a Sandinista, Belli essentially acted as a spy for the revolutionaries.  She maintained her life as a bourgeois housewife and office worker during the day, but met with different contacts in the Sandinistas and helped them organize at night (or whenever else she could make the time).

Eventually, however, the regime began to suspect her.  She found herself frequently tailed by Somoza's national guard when she drove, and her house often had patrol cars stationed outside.  Still she continued to assist the revolution whenever she could.  Eventually this caught up with her in 1975, but since she was wealthy, she ended up in exile rather than dead.

Then again, even affluent voices of dissent weren't safe, even non-violent/non-revolutionary ones.

Even abroad, Belli still found ways to help out the revolution in her home country.  She acted as an ambassador of sorts, going to different countries to make a case for the Sandinista cause against the Somoza Dynasty and participating in Sandinista solidarity marches in these countries.  This continued until her return to the country 1979, just before the Sandinistas won the Nicaraguan Revolution on July 17th.

Her work wasn't done after the revolution's victory, however.  After the FSLN won and established a socialist democracy in Nicaragua, the FSLN transitioned from a revolutionary force to a political party.  She served as the party's international press liaison beginning in 1982 and the director of State Communications in 1984 after the FSLN as a party won the 1984 elections that international observers deemed to be fair.

Unfortunately for Nicaragua, Reagan became president shortly after the Somoza Dynasty was overthrown.  He funded right wing terrorists, made up largely of National Guard members of the Somoza regime, to wage war against Nicaragua.  Belli helped organize against these counter-revolutionary forces, known as the Contras.

Unfortunately, while the Contras weren't strong enough to defeat the FSLN, the backing of the US allowed them to hold on long enough to devastate a country already recovering from the Nicaraguan Revolution.  The fighting tore Nicaragua apart, and a demoralized population voted against FSLN candidate Daniel Ortega for moderate candidate Violetta Chamorro in 1990 after the Reagan/Bush administrations promised to end support for the Contras and the embargo against Nicaragua if Chamorro was chosen.  Unlike the 1984 elections, which had an electric air of excitement and optimism to them, there was "a sense of mourning" after Chamorro's victory, though Belli makes the point that Chamorro "turned out to be a maternal figure whose simple words cradled and consoled the divided, broken country"* during her presidency.

Belli has since lived in both Nicaragua and the United States, having fell in love with and married an NPR reporter from the United States.  She hasn't been afraid to criticize different aspects and people of the FSLN in the years since, either.  Especially former/current president Daniel Ortega, who many allege is an opportunist who is a Sandinista in name only.

Apparently with terrible mustaches comes terrible leadership.

To this day Belli still organizes, though she spends more time as a writer and speaker.  Even with everything she has experienced, she remains an optimist.  Her memoir ends with one of the most beautiful, insightful passages I've ever seen, and I'd like to share it with you:

"I dare say, after the life I have lived, that there is nothing quixotic or romantic in wanting to change the world.  It is possible.  It is the age-old vocation of all humanity.  I can't think of a better life than one dedicated to passion, to dreams, to the stubbornness that defies chaos and disillusionment.  Our world, filled with possibilities, is and will be the result of the efforts offered up by us, its inhabitants.  Just as life was a consequence of trial and error, the social organization that brings us the full realization of our potential as a species will issue from the ebb and flow of struggles we jointly take across the globe.

The future is a construct that is shaped in the present, and that is why to be responsible in the present is the only way of taking serious responsibility for the future.  What is important is not the fulfillment of all one's dreams, but the stubborn determination to continue dreaming.  We will have grandchildren, and they will have children too.  The world will continue, and whether we know it or not, we are deciding its course every day.

My deaths, my dead, were not in vain.  This is a relay race to the end of time.  In the United States, just as in Nicaragua, I am the same Quixota who learned through life's battles that defeat can be as much of an illusion as victory."

 *All quotes drawn from her excellent memoir "The Country Under My Skin"

On Creative Writing Classes

One of the most hotly debate topics among authors is whether or not creative writing classes are worth an aspiring writer's time.  The internet is filled with wonderful think pieces by writers of all types on the topic.  While a few of these pieces are unrelentingly pro- or anti-creative writing class, the majority of them have a more nuanced view that weighs the relative pros and cons of creative writing classes.  Many of these articles that end up being against creative writing classes recognize their merit, while many of these articles that conclude they are worth it do recognize they aren't without drawbacks.

Well, as an author myself, I figured I would take a moment to weigh in on the debate.  I took two creative writing classes in college and both had a tangible impact on my writing.  In this post I will lay out why I think these classes can be of a lot of benefit to aspiring writers, though they are not without their drawbacks.

Of course, no amount of writing classes can be as helpful for your writing

as finding a frenemy to become dramatic rivals with.

The first and most obvious merit to creative writing classes is one that almost every think piece on the subject, regardless of their ultimate position, regards as a merit for creative writing classes: time spent reading other creative works and writing your own pieces.

There doesn't seem to be much to say here, really.  The more practice you can get at whatever you're trying to do, the better.  A creative writing class mandates that you read and write a certain amount, and that extra practice on top of whatever else you do in your free time is important.

On the other hand, you can say that a dedicated writer will find time to write no matter what.  There is a lot of merit to this idea at first glance, especially considering the majority of authors we consider great never took a creative writing class in their life.  Sure, you might not be doing it for a class project, but that doesn't matter if you're getting in that practice on your own, right?

Well, yes and no.  To get at what I mean, let's talk about another one of my favorite topics for a moment: boxing.

First lesson: if you can throw a punch, you can write a book.

Say you want to try your hand at boxing.  You scoff at the idea of going into a gym "because all you need is a heavybag and the practice", and so you go to your local sporting goods store and buy yourself your own gloves, mouth guard, wraps, heavybag, and heavybag stand.  Of course, knowing that direct practice is what counts, you make sure to get in your sparring rounds by boxing with friends in your backyard.  After training for a while you set up your first boxing match and, surprise surprise, you lose terribly.

It doesn't take a professional boxer to figure out what went wrong in the scenario above.  You didn't have a coach to instruct you on how to better your technique and fight more effectively.  Meanwhile, your opponent was being guided along a path of proper boxing and constant peer-review from people who have at least an idea of what they're doing.  But that's completely different from writing, right?  Boxing is about objective results (winning matches), whereas writing is a much more subjective experience.  Stemming from that, there is an objective way to be a good boxer, whereas there isn't really a standard way to be a good writer, right?

Well, not exactly.  Yes, there are general ways to become a better boxer- keeping your hands high to protect yourself from getting hit, for instance.  It's one of the first things they try to teach you in any boxing classes.  "Hands up, hands up, hands up!"  Yet tons of famous boxers, including the infamous Muhammad Ali, had a habit of winning fights with their hands down.

Hah, this "Ali" fella clearly knows nothing about boxing!

There is no universally "correct" way to box.  Check out just a few seconds of a highlight reel of Pernell Whitaker, then Roy Jones Jr, then Roberto Duran.  I could go on, but the point is clear: the way each of these men fight and move are very different, and yet they're all regarded as some of the greatest boxers of the last few decades.  None of their styles are "wrong" even though they don't clearly resemble each other at all.

So, we can understand there isn't a "right" way to box, even if there are general principles you want to keep in mind.  The same can be said of writing.  And this is where someone might reasonably come in and say "but writing is completely subjective!  Proper boxing is partially subjective, but you're still trying to win.  Writing is completely subjective!"  That technically isn't wrong, but it's also not an opinion most people actually hold, even if they think they do.

Let's try something real quick to see what I'm getting at.

"Once there was a guy named Sam.  Sam worked at an office.  One day he died of a heart attack and it was super sad."  If story telling were completely, absolutely subjective, do you think it is perfectly reasonable to say what I just wrote is as compelling and absorbing as The Great Gatsby?  Or, to compare it to a work of comparable length, even as much as Hemingway's famous six word short story "for sale: baby shoes, never worn"?  Probably not.

Like with boxing, there isn't a "proper" way to do everything, but there are some guidelines you should try to follow.  How can you make readers care about your characters, or challenge them to think about the themes in your story, or keep them on the edge of their seats as they race through your story's plot?  The story I wrote above doesn't even try to answer any of those questions.  You don't know who Sam is and why you should care about him, you aren't challenged to think about any sort of themes, there is no story arc for us to get absorbed in.

*scoff*  Obviously my story was a commentary on post-industrial capitalism.

So what does all this have to do with writing classes?  A lot.  The feedback from your instructor and peers will be valuable, and guide your practice in the right direction.  In your writing teacher you will have the equivalent of your boxing coach, who presumably has more writing experience than you and therefore some valuable perspective on what you're trying to accomplish.  In your classmates you have your sparring partners: putting your work up for review is like stepping into the ring to test your technique.  Like the feedback that comes with testing your boxing technique in sparring, the feedback that comes with testing your writing technique in peer editing will help immensely.

It's important to note this feedback is coming from other people pursuing the same craft as you.  That's what makes it so important.  It's not that people who haven't taken a creative writing class can't bring equally valuable advice to the table- of the friends I turn to for trusted feedback on my writing, a number of them have never taken a creative writing class in their life.  It's that a creative writing class gathers a group of people who enjoy creative writing and spend time thinking about it.  That's not easy to find outside of a classroom specifically dedicated to the subject, especially if your city doesn't have any sort of writer groups/clubs.  Getting feedback from people who also take writing seriously is what counts, and a creative writing class just happens to give you an environment where you are more likely to get that.

Let's go back to something we mentioned earlier: the fact that many writers we call great never took a creative writing class in their life.  That is absolutely true.  Yet most of them still had a lot of experience in writing-related environments: Ernest Hemingway, Mark Twain, Maya Angelou, and Sinclair Lewis all worked as journalists before becoming novelists, for instance.  Countless writers began as copy editors and other such small time jobs involving writing.

All of these experiences helped them shape their writing and understanding of the written language itself, making claims of "they didn't take any creative writing classes at all!" true but disingenuous when looked at in context.  Even if they weren't writing fiction when they worked in these other fields, they were still interacting with the written word, day in and day out, consistently.

Sort of like how a background as a breakdancer can help you on your way to becoming a Jiujitsu blackbelt in a record amount of time (yes, I am shamelessly promoting my Jiujitsu coaches).

Now, this isn't all to say that you should take feedback from others unquestioningly.  I have written an entire post about this topic before.  The gist of my final point in that post: even when you're getting feedback from people who know what they're talking about, not all feedback will work for what you're trying to do.  Sometimes you may even get directly contradictory feedback; one person may suggest a certain part of your story needs less descriptive writing, for instance, while another may suggest more for the exact same passage.  You have to weigh the pros and cons of each bit of feedback you get, while also making sure you reject or accept feedback for the right reasons (for instance, making sure your ego isn't getting in the way of accepting certain feedback).  This is, of course, easier said than done.

But the point here is that creative writing classes offer a good chance to get this sort of feedback, which will help guide your writing with useful tips and guidelines to keep in mind.  This practice, as in any other pursuit, is a lot more valuable than practice that isn't informed by any sort of feedback or awareness of craft.

This is all without getting to specific exercises and ways of writing that you can get in a creative writing class.  To give an example of something that helped me early in my writing, in the first of the two writing classes I've taken in my life our teacher had a rule when it came time for writing: we couldn't kill off our characters.  His reasoning was that too many aspiring writers try to kill off their characters at the end of a story as a shortcut for unearned drama and tragedy.  At first I scoffed and rolled my eyes, but in the long run it helped me.  It gave me practice writing stories where the stakes are raised without character deaths, and practice writing tragedy which comes from more than just the end of life (unfulfilled dreams, compromised values, other such things that can deflate us without death).  It also meant I was more careful about choosing when a character dies.

That's just one example of a few rules that teacher had.

Another rule: if possible, be Murakami.  Not, like, emulate his writing style.  Just literally be him.

In both classes we also did specific writing exercises, beyond just free writing, that helped our story-telling.  In the second class I took, one incredibly helpful writing exercise we had was to read short stories and analyze specific story telling decisions the writer made in putting the story together.  The point is to zoom in on every narrative decision made to determine whether each decision worked, and in what way, and to what extent.  I used that exercise in writing a post about poignant moments in videogames and another one in looking at the writing in Avatar: The Last Airbender/The Legend of Korra.

So, creative writing classes are very helpful.  That said, they're not perfect.  While I had a great experience in both of my classes, I've heard mixed results from others who have taken creative writing classes.  Sometimes the instructor is pretentious, sometimes the instructor doesn't like writing styles that don't fit their definition of what writing "should" be, sometimes the teacher doesn't have much of a background in writing at all, sometimes there is nothing wrong with the teacher but their teaching style and your learning style just don't vibe; sometimes the instructor is great, but your classmates suck for various reasons.

Beyond that, maybe you're already in an environment where you have plenty of exposure to the written word and don't feel the need to take a creative writing class.

Also, with college being as expensive as it is, maybe you can't afford paying over $100 just to take a 3 unit creative writing class- or, you can, but that's still a lot of money and you don't want to risk spending that much in case the class doesn't turn out to be good.  That is perfectly understandable, even wise.  But in that case I would recommend supplementing your reading and writing practice with looking up reading and writing exercises online, reading books about writing from masters of the craft, and other such forms of enhancing your practice in guided and informed ways (which, to be fair, you should be doing even if you have taken classes before).

Whatever your field, it's important to supplement your practice with study and thought about your art.  A creative writing class is a good way to get that, hence why I would recommend it, but it is by no means a necessity.  Just remember the most important part of writing: keep creating, and have fun!