A Look into the History of the Oscar's Representation

            Given that the 89^th Academy Awards take place this Sunday, I am choosing to write about my take on how the Oscars represents diversity.  Oscars 2016 was highly reprimanded and subsequently boycotted for its lack of African American, and other minority group nominees.  While there were certainly some people of color nominated, it was not in any of the major categories.  As a result, the Oscars were deemed “so white” and a twitter trend followed in suit: #OscarsSoWhite.  This year, 2017, there is much more representation of minority groups in major categories, including “Moonlight” for Best Picture, which contains a predominantly Black cast.  However, one year of impressive representation does not overshadow the past 88 years.  The historical representation of nominees at the Academy Awards provides an over arching view on how multiculturalism is represented in the media. 

            Let us first take a look into the past. The first Oscar awards were hosted on May 16, 1929.  However, the first African American to be nominated for Best Actor was not until 1958, 19 years later.  The first win in this category was not until 5 years later, in 1963.  At the time, Black people were not a priority in the view’s of society, much less at the Academy Awards.  They were deemed as an “Other” so to say – a group of people that fell outside of the in-groups way of life (including popular culture activities) While a notion such as this would not be tolerated in today’s society (refer to Oscar boycotting) back then, there was not the same rebellion against the system as there are now – Black people simply wanted to be recognized and equal (although the meaning of equality was and still is distorted).  Bell Hooks says this, “marginalized groups, deemed Other, who have been ignored, rendered invisible, can be seduced by the emphasis on Otherness, by its commodification, because it offers the promise of recognition and reconciliation.”  While the context may not be the same in relation to this topic, it rings true nonetheless.  Through research of the civil rights period, it is evident that there are some Black people who wanted to be accepted into society and treated as equal, and some who demanded, rightfully so, more.  African Americans who were recognized at past Oscars may not have been as upset at the lack of diversity, but instead thrilled that they were finally getting the recognition that they deserved – a mindset falling under double consciousness.

            Further suppressing African Americans at past Oscars was the overall culture surrounding the awards ceremony.  This is was and is considered a prestigious ceremony – but it only nominated White people for almost 20 years.  At this point, a defined culture would be set in place that would be difficult for the society-deemed “Other groups” to break through.  In Borderlands by Gloria Anzaldua, she states that in her experience, “Culture forms our beliefs.  We perceive the version of reality that it communicates. Dominant paradigms, predefined concepts that exist as unquestionable, unchallengeable, are transmitted to us through the culture.”  For an extensive amount of time, the culture forming society’s beliefs on the Oscars was that it was a high honor meant predominantly for Caucasians.  As time as progressed, this ideology has slowly but surely began to change.

            Fast forward to today.  We as a society have made a lot of progress in regards to the Oscars, but we still have quite a ways to go.  There are still dominant trends seen, such as more White people than Black people being nominated, or few Black women being nominated, but the conversation surrounding this lack of diversity has begun to spark change.  This change will hopefully continue to progress in the future.

            The world consists of stereotypes surrounding minorities, both in race and gender.  Furthermore, individuals falling into minority categories are given a set of predetermined rules that they are expected to follow, and are reprimanded should their behavior go against it.  While these stereotypes are not as overt in the present day, they still exist on an inferential level.

            Have you ever watched a TV show or movie, or even the news, and been surprised when an individual is not what you would have imagined? The media has a tendency to depict Whites as victimized, while Blacks, Latinos, etc. are shown as the aggressors.  When a storyline, fictional or real, steers away from this depiction, we as an audience some form of reaction, whether evident or subliminal, because it falls outside of the norm.  An idea of minority races being aggressors has existed for decades on end, and is now an ideology (a meaning that helps simplify the world and leads to individual comprehension and judgment) that is hard to abolish.

            The extreme side of this view is when this stereotyping translates into enforcing a way of life for a minority group.  For example, women in many countries across the globe are forced to act in a certain manner, often in a way that depicts them as less than men.  In Borderlands by Gloria Anzadula, she discusses how in her culture, “the Church insists that women are subservient to men” and that there existed essentially only three paths of life that they are able to chose: 1) a nun 2) a prostitute, or 3) a mother.  Only few got to choose an extremely rare fourth option, which included an education.  These ways of life were set out for them, while men had many more options.  Anzadula further explains how these expectations also existed in terms of sexuality, in relations to women.  Women who identified as lesbian were often outcast from their society, a fear that Anzadula had for herself.  As a result, women growing up in these types of countries are guided through life without much personal choice of their future.

            Although these stereotypes primarily exist across races, they can exist within a race as well (i.e. black on black racism or “implicit bias”).  This phenomenon stems back to racism as a whole; the negative stereotypes placed upon minorities may often affect how they began to see each other.  However, this type of bias is more inferential than overt. 

            While racism will always exist, it is important that we as a society acknowledge the stereotypes that pervade us, in order to abstain from placing negative expectations upon minority groups.

My Take on the "Non-ban" and How it Has Impacted the View on Muslims

            American society is currently going through a time of divide – an “us vs. them” scenario.  I am referring to those of Arab descent, as well as those who identify as Muslim.  Ever since the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, a negative stigma has been assigned to Muslims - the generalized belief of a radicalized Arab people, and the idea that they are against America and its citizens. Now, every time a person of this descent steps on to an airplane, all eyes, intentionally or not, are drawn to that individual, and imaginative motives are assigned to them.  This phenomenon, us vs them, has drastically increased in the days since Trump announced his vie for the presidency of the United States.  A large portion of his campaign was stating his concerns for the safety of America, specifically that in order to ensure this safety, we need to keep terrorists out of our country, which means halting refugees from passing American borders to guarantee that no terrorists “sneak in.”  This idea came to fruition on January 27^th, when the President enacted a “travel ban” which prevented those from Muslim majority countries to enter the U.S. (a tactic that both he and his cabinet will insist is not an actual ban).  Thankfully, this “non-ban” was halted and subsequently terminated by leading judges.  But despite it’s the outcome, the non-ban, and the motions leading up to it, reinforced adverse ideas surrounding Muslims.

            In the text Borderlands by Gloria Anazandula, she discusses how an us vs. them way of thinking establishes safe and unsafe territories.  Presently, many Americans believe that their country is safe, and that allowing refugees, and possible terrorist, to slip pass the borders, will bring about the “unsafe” aspects seen in other nations.  This way of thinking, however, fails to acknowledge that many of the horrendous acts that take place in America are by those who are, in fact, American.  Furthermore, when considering the non-ban specifically, the seven countries that were listed have not been faulted with an attack on American soil in the past several decades.  As a result, no increase in “safety” would have actually resulted should this non-ban had remained in place. Instead, all that occurred was the furtherance of depicting Muslims, Arabs, etc. as those who had harmful intentions for America, when this in fact is not the case for the majority.  They are being painted in a way that makes society fear them, and creates a separation.

            One of the biggest ways to abolish this us vs them way of thinking is simply doing research.  Sure, there have been terrorist attacks in the U.S., but is important to separate radical Muslims, from those who are just practicing their faith, in the same way that it is important to separate the KKK from Christians.  The actual change of thinking may take an extensive amount of time, and in all honesty, may never actually be abolished, in the same way that racism will always exist.  Nonetheless, it is dire, especially now, that we try to move away from the current thinking surrounding Muslims.