In his article “Relax!”, Riordan Frost attempts to debunk my contention that the last Harry Potter film is racist, sexist and homophobic. I would like show that while the arguments offered by Frost are at times emotively commonsensical, the logic and reasoning behind them are both philosophically unsound and socially destructve.
Firstly, I would like to start by juxtaposing our titles.
Frost’s title, “Relax!” presupposes that because I am critical about the mundane experiences in my life (say, watching a Harry Potter film) I am somehow tense, unable to see past the ugly and unable to appreciate the art. This is not the case. There are many folks who choose to ‘see’ and lay claim to witnessing the hidden injustices that occur in day to day living – be it racism, sexism, homophobia, environmental injustice, educational injustice, body-type discrimination, and the list goes on and on – and still lead buoyant, or should I say, pliant, lives.
I titled my piece “A Critical Sensibility.” And I believe that perhaps the above presumption lies in the fact that the word ‘critical’ has an undeserved bad rap. According to etomology.com, the word ‘critical’ has its roots in the Latin word, criticus, and in the Greek, kritikos, which are respectively defined as “able to make judgments” and “to separate and decide.” In English, the word is analogous to “censurer” and “faultfinder.”
If we think about it, then, when conjoined these three definitions make up the ‘American way of life.’ Don’t most of us (1) attempt to separate truth from myth (2) seek out the faults in the truth before us, and finally (3) make judgments so that we may be free to take action? I think that most of us are critical in our daily living. In fact, one may not know it as such, but a critical sensibility is a source of self-empowerment.
Secondly, I submitted that intent is always nullified by result. Frost countered my argument by merely claiming that intention (or lack thereof) is what matters most. He provided no substantiated examples to support the claim. He also added that individuals wanting reparation for unintended harm done to them are “much too sensitive.”
Okay: This summer as I was driving up to an orthodontist appointment, the car behind crashed into mine. The legal system found her guilty – she admitted that her intention was to stop in time.
Thirdly, Frost proposed that people like me have a goal. That I am on a hunt for racist, sexist and homophobic action so to prove a point. Even I admit that on the surface this is an appealing claim. We know that some folk are simply out to collect evidence that affirms a particular goal of theirs and that in the process they come to false conclusions. Yet, I want to propose that this argument is problematic for Frost.
My goal is a more equitable and fair world. So you see, following Frost’s logic I should be out to prove that an equitable world already exists! Instead, I do something that seems to upset many people: I highlight and pinpoint the ugly. Secondly, this argument is a classic ad hominem. That is, rather than truly dealing with the dilemma at hand – i.e., the real affects of racist, sexist and homophobic acts – Frost appeals to the audience’s prejudices, emotions or special interests, and without any evidence merely claims that people like me are out to find (a.k.a. create) problems in the world.
Fourthly, I agree with the argument that not every minority character should be put forth as the apex of morality. This does nothing to my claim that not ALL interracial relationships ought be presented as dysfunctional.
Lastly, at the root of all of the arguments put forth by Frost seems to be the assumption that because X is a certain way, X must remain that way forever. In other words, if the film industry is homophobic, racist, and sexist, why should Harry Potter be different?
This is a valid question, one that I do not have the answer to. But I do know a few things. First, a willful X, if willing, can become Y. That is, if the individuals responsible for this film desired it, they could alter the way in which children watching the film are socialized about race, gender and sexuality. (Sure, they may lose some money in the process, but they’d set a standard for what’s right).
And we should all care. Mostly, because in due time it will be our own children who inhabit the earth. See, to me this is personal. If ever I have kids, they will be Black and Latino. And I know that, unless something changes, the world will be more daunting and dangerous to (and for) them because of it. And who knows, my kid (like your kid) may end up belonging to the LGBTQ community; he or she might be born to a different body; my kid may be a girl who grows up into a woman; he or she may be…?
In short, I believe that if we are to create an equitable world we will have to highlight and deconstruct the inequitable one that’s currently in its place. I have never heard of a house being built on top of trees. The trees must first come down. And to bring the trees down requires that one see them – even the little ones.
(My sincere apologies to environmentalists and to trees alike).
