Whale wars part II: Japan refuses to halt whaling practices
Tides have changed in Japan since last Monday’s edition of “Fin-tastic Marine Mondays,” shocking and disturbing the international environmental scene.
In the wake of the decision made by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which ruled that the whaling activities conducted by the Japanese government were under the thin guise of contributing to science, Japan has only briefly halted whaling practices. When the ruling was made, Japan had stated that they would adhere to the decision of the court, appeasing environmentalists and Western cultures who look at whaling as incredibly outdated and disruptive to the environment. However, this past Friday Japan announced that whaling practices would be resumed, shocking political experts worldwide.
The revamped whaling program would reduce the “research” hunt in the northern Pacific Ocean by half, still aiming to kill 210 whales per year and limiting research goals to collecting DNA and tissue samples. Additionally, the government has stated that measures to intercept vessels that have attempted to disrupt whaling, most notably the United States anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, will be drastically increased.
The overhaul of the governmental whaling program entirely misses the mark set by the ICJ and global environmentalists. The whaling program was clearly operating under loose scientific contributions and by seemingly increasing these contributions, Japan is still not addressing the central issue of whaling. The country views whaling as a cultural tradition and interprets the ruling of the ICJ as threatening a practice that has been ongoing in the country for decades. Shifting the practice to one for “science,” however, is an inappropriate strategy for maintaining tradition. The government claims that whaling is necessary to monitor the whale populations in the Pacific, yet Japan is the only country in the Pacific Rim that practices whaling. There is a clear and reasonable opportunity for the country to shift toward monitoring practices that do not involve the brutal slaughter of the ocean’s giants. Whales are slow-growing, slow-breeding animals, and killing them is inherently threatening their enduring presence in the world’s oceans. As a migratory species, killing whales disrupts their global presence, preyed upon by the Japanese government.
It seems that Japan is near mocking in its advocacy for a practice that is globally perceived as destroying the environment. In light of the ruling, the Japanese parliament has been accused of making the shift in scientific collection measures as a handout to the food and agriculture lobbies of Japan. Whale meat and products are still sold commercially, coming directly from the government’s “scientific” activities despite the gradual downturn of whale meat consumption by the Japanese population. During its congressional meeting on this issue, members of the parliament went as far to make tongue-in-cheek jokes about serving President Obama whale meat during his trip to Tokyo this coming month.
The thin guise of research, no matter how effective, is not an appropriate excuse for the continuation of whaling practices. Japan has clear models in every other country in the Pacific Rim to adapt to new monitoring research that would halt whaling practices for good. The excuse of maintaining cultural traditions does not apply to scientific data collection, clearly indicating that research on whales is conducted as a facade for commercial whaling.
Luckily, the decision of the ICJ has brought the whaling practices of Japan into the public conscious, and hopefully as international sentiment becomes sour, the country will realize that maintaining cultural traditions simply does not support the slaughter of whales any longer. I hope that Japan realizes this sooner rather than later. The cruel killing of whales under such thin excuses could irreversibly damage the diverse waters of the Pacific and, ironically, destroy whale populations for good.
Jill Goatcher is a senior politics major and marine biology minor. She can be reached at goatcher@oxy.edu or on Twitter @WklyJGoatcher.
'American Horror Story' is baffling, incompetent, compelling trash
If you want to get right down to it, “Two and a Half Men” is the worst show on television. Followed closely by the execrable “Family Guy,” with “The Big Bang Theory” grabbing the bronze, and “Two Broke Girls” closing out this parade of hot garbage. Yes, the so-called “Golden Age” of television certainly has its fair share of trash polluting the airwaves (“Dads” is also quite terrible, but that show is likely dead in the water after 18 episodes).
But there is one bad show that towers above the others, with flaws that lie not in the realm of misogyny nor awful jokes but in compellingly terrible decisions. I speak of none other than “American Horror Story.”
I have seen two seasons of “American Horror Story” because I was really bored when I watched Season One (retroactively known as “Murder House”) and a group of liars — whose opinions I have put in the “untrustworthy” basket — convinced me that the second season was actually good. They were not completely wrong — “American Horror Story: Asylum” is a marked improvement, going from “absolutely incoherent” to merely “unfocused and dumb.”
Of the three words used to describe this haphazard collection of motley concepts packaged as a television miniseries, “American” is probably the singular accurate one. Yes, this series was made by Americans and takes place in America. Hit the nail on the head there, chief. But “Horror” doesn’t quite work because the show isn’t even remotely scary and “Story” is really pushing it.
There’s not any one issue at the core of “American Horror Story” you could point to; rather, there is a series of mounting structural issues. Both seasons have terrible finales, running out the clock by spending time with empty characters. One of the protagonists in “Asylum” is so dull that his entire character arc (I’m using that term loosely) revolves around what a gosh-darn swell guy he is. Without a reason to care about these people, those episodes are just 45 minutes of violently jamming together every possible loose end.
Both seasons also use rape scenes as a way to induce drama; a casually sexist way to raise the stakes. This misogynstic plot device is a fine example of the show’s often problematic views towards women, and should have been the very first thing on the cutting room floor. Instead, rape is used in both seasons and is even frequent in “Asylum,” leaving me to wonder if this show is run by sociopaths.
As for the individual seasons, its downfalls are ironically opposed. “Murder House” surrounds its mysteries with characters nobody could possibly like, whereas “Asylum” surrounds its bland characters with mysteries that clash with each other.
“Murder House” is about a cursed house that traps people who die there as ghosts. This isn’t a new concept but “Murder House” somehow got lost on a trail so blazed that not even Visine could save it. The number of ghosts just piles up, each one more a cartoon than fully realized character. Some are even offensive, like a gay couple obsessed with interior decorating or how the women are obsessed with babies. It’s an oddly backwards series of stereotypes for a show released to the public in 2011. Although I would almost prefer watching some cartoons jump out of closets than spend any time with “Murder House’s” gallery of unlikable jerks. Even the characters who get arcs switch between dull or irritating.
“Asylum” is about, well, a lot of things. It’s about a corrupt mental hospital, obviously, but there’s also the actual Satan, aliens, serial killers, a former Nazi doctor performing experiments on inmates, failed experiments roaming the scary woods, a plucky journalist and nuns. The mix of ideas clash with each other because there’s no coherent mythology to the series. Is it science fiction? Is it supernatural? Or are we just getting a look into the dark heart of mankind? This isn’t “The X-Files,” where the different supernatural elements were part of the show’s conceit. A mini-series has the ability to be more focused, but “Asylum’s” eyes far outweigh its appetite.
You know what else both seasons have in common? They aren’t scary. And for a horror series, that’s a pretty damning complaint. Without getting too much into the mechanics, cinematic horror is effective when the creative team properly utilizes tension and discordant visuals. We feel tense during a well-made scarefest because the movie or show is visually telling our subconscious that we’re about to be scared. And when it’s time to spring the trap, the right visuals must be utilized. Good horror visuals are just slightly off, and there’s a psychological reason for that. The reason most people find ultra-realistic baby dolls so creepy is because it comes so close to looking ultra-realistic but there’s just something fake about them that you can’t quite place. That concept is what makes effective horror so unnerving.
In “American Horror Story,” there’s no tension, and the visuals are cartoonish. What’s scary about a man in a rubber suit just standing around? Is he gonna menace that unlikable protagonist? The show is even shot like a regular TV show, right down to the calm, even lighting. Good visual horror keeps most of its tricks behind a smokescreen, letting viewers in only to scare them silly. “American Horror Story” does not do this correctly. But it doesn’t really do much of anything correctly, so we’ll just consider it par for the course.
Without characters we care about, a compelling mythology, or even decent scares, “American Horror Story” has no reason to exist besides providing compellingly bad TV. I certainly enjoyed watching these shows, if only because the multitude of baffling creative decisions kept my interest. That may be something of a backhanded compliment, but it’s the highest compliment I can pay this show.
Mike Cosimano is a first-year psychology major. He can be reached at cosimanowhite@oxy.edu or on Twitter @WklyMCosimano.
Big names, small prices
It is no secret that designer items are expensive. As soon as the label of a top designer gets stuck on an item, the price tag immediately gets a couple zeroes added onto it. In the past, this has meant T-shirts for hundreds of dollars, coin purses for thousands of dollars and jewelry the same price as a two-bedroom house. While most people would be bankrupt trying to purchase some of these items, a very select few people will buy or even get on wait lists for these items. If you ask any person toting an Hermes Berkin bag, they will tell you the six-week wait and $10,000 they parted with were absolutely worth it. This is the power and prestige that is associated with designer items.
Something truly magical happens when these designers collaborate with low-end brands. A special, limited edition collection of designer curated items will be rolled out with budget-friendly price tags ready for consumption by the masses. This has made it possible to pick up dresses designed by Prabal Gurung at Target alongside your paper towel or to peruse the junior’s section at Macy’s before coming upon printed frocks by Matthew Williamson. These capsule collections are wildly successful, and the announcement of two new collaborations with major retailers H&M; and Banana Republic continue to thrill.
H&M; has managed to have multiple successful designer collaborations. Collections with Jimmy Choo, Versace and Karl Lagerfeld all sold out in stores; its latest collaboration with super-cool-kid designer Alexander Wang will likely be no different. Wang has brought collections to the world that have altered trends dramatically, and in celebration of H&M;’s ten years doing designer collaborations, Wang is also going to be the first American designer to team up with the brand. In truly fabulous style, the announcement came during a party at the Coachella Music Festival. Wang talked excitedly to reporters about the collection that will be released exclusively in only 250 stores worldwide.
“I wanted to do something different. It will be a new take on a lifestyle offering,” Wang said.
It seems like a pretty obvious marriage between Wang and H&M.; Both are fashion forward with a minimalist aesthetic that makes for easy, chic style that is approachable to many people. Expect color blocking, muted shades across the board and, most excitingly, prices below $100 when the styles are released in early November.
Meanwhile, Banana Republic made several announcements that thrilled the fashion world. While the mid-priced label usually keeps closets stocked with well-tailored skirts and dresses, it looks like they are hoping to revamp their image. Marissa Webb, who boasts an independent design label and is an ex-J. Crew designer, has been appointed as Banana Republic’s creative director. Webb, like Wang, brings a modern edge to her clothes but likes to have a little more femininity. Lace, denim and blazers with intriguing details are Webb’s personal go-to items and will work well at Banana Republic.
Even more exciting was news that Roland Mouret would collaborate with Banana Republic. French designer Mouret is known for incredible dresses that highlight and accentuate an hourglass figure without being over the top. This is accomplished through structured tailoring that make shoulders look strong and broad alongside seams that give the illusion of Barbie-like dimensions. Mouret is incredibly successful — Duchess Kate Middleton is a fan and Victoria Beckham wears his dresses almost religiously, even tapping Mouret to design a collection with her.
Happily, shoppers won’t have to wait long for the items to hit stores. The collection of 25 dresses, jackets and separates will be released in August in-stores and online, priced between $50 and $170.
Between Wang and Mouret, fashionistas will have plenty of shopping to do in the coming months. Start spring cleaning your closets to make room!
Noel Hemphill is a junior ECLS major. She can be reached at hemphill@oxy.edu or on Twitter @WklyNHemphill.
The OSAC of Hyderabad: Examining anti-sexual assault activism from the other side of the world
Mishandled sexual assault cases. Troublesome comments from members of the staff. Student activists with clear faculty support, but murkiness from top administration.
Sound familiar?
Despite being thousands of miles away, the University of Hyderabad faces very similar problems to those at Occidental regarding sexual assault. I explored these issues and more by sitting down with Sayantan Mondal, a convener of the sardonically named organization, Just Another Students Group (JASG). Several weeks ago, in commemeration of International Women’s Day, members of JASG wrote and performed a street play around campus protesting both national and campus attitudes regarding gender and sexual violence. They performed thrice, at three of the most populated student facilities (the equivalent of the center of the Quad, the Cooler and the Branca Patio).
Their work was multicentered — drawing on media influence, traditional culture and the university climate itself. One component of the play was based on a true incident, where non-university members came on to campus and attempted to drag a female student into their car. Fortunately, other students observed this and were able to call the university gate and report the car’s license plate number. But when the girl approached the university’s Chief Security Officer for assistance in taking legal action against the harasser, he proceeded to lecture her on sexual morality.
“Don’t roam after nine, don’t wear inappropriate clothes, a girl going out after seven should take a boy,” Mondal recounted. “Campus should be a place where you can roam around.”
UoH is far from the worst campus in India. Mondal described another incident at Benares Hindi University, a less liberal campus, where two male and female Ph.D students were observed together after dark. Some security guards escorted the girl back to her dorm, while others proceeded to physically assault the boy. While caste and class are the top issue in India, Mondal says, “Wherever you look, underneath, the gender issue is always there.”
On a national level, a country that was rocked by prominent sexual assaults in 2012 is making stuttering steps toward progress on gender issues. While the Indian Supreme Court recently recriminalized homosexuality, they just this month recognized transgendered individuals, or “hijra,” as an official third gender in Indian law. Public anger has certainly been galvanized against formerly widely tolerated practices of male sexual violence against women, but actually enacting change in long-formed mindsets will always be difficult.
This is where work like the street play comes in. The street play used satire to address serious issues “taken from the memory of the campus community.” One scene showed a woman, stuck in a horrible life, see her world be radically transformed after using a commercially popular skin-whitening product. This kind of humor can get into people’s minds in a way a person shouting with a microphone cannot. Notably, the play involved people who had real experiences with sexual harassment from the beginning, a point Mondal emphasized.
“No matter how much I try to learn, as a male, we take a lot of things for granted,” Mondal said. “We’re not aware of mistakes. It’s important to be humbled with apprehension that you may not understand what happens to women. No matter how progressive you consider yourself, it’s always the best thing to let subjects who really face this talk.”
On a whole, Mondal finds the campus “enabling” for the kind of work his organization does.
“In campus people read, they know what’s going on. Outside” — he paused, looking for the right word — ”is more regressive.”
Mondal was quick to clarify that campus mindsets still had a long way to go. At a rally protesting the 12 a.m. curfew mandated only on female students, the vice chancellor of the university (the Jonathan Veitch of the University of Hyderabad) made a remarkably out-of-touch statement.
“You girls, what is your demand? You want 24 hours of freedom?” he said.
Faculty criticized him for this statement and Mondal characterized him as “confused” by the changing world around him.
Among students as well, there is room for improvement. In documents prepared during the street play planning process, JASG sought to confront daily conversational language that remains, “extremely gender biased… [in public spaces] popular sexist slangs are not seen as offensive but are quite okay and funny!”
For Mondal, joking is a serious matter.
“Anything you talk about, you preach,” Mondal said.
It’s not a matter of being politically correct – “you should be correct,” according to Mondal.
In a country with a strong patriarchal history and memory, some would cut slack to students coming from less progressive backgrounds. Not Mondal. Upbringing is “as minimal as any other factor” in determining someone’s behavior.
“You encounter many influences [in life] and everyone has a minimum responsibility to take a stance among all the choices. If you say, ‘I’m this way because I have all that is on this list,’ you’re not being responsible to yourself or others,” the activist asserts, imagining a tally sheet of reasons why a person might not be progressive.
Fortunately, there are more supportive members of the campus community. The Gender Sensitization Committee Against Sexual Harassment (GSCASH) composed of students, administrators and faculty provided funding for JSAG’s play. According to Mondal, the group is familiar with both the academic and popular rhetoric surrounding sexual assault and is a valuable resource.
Even more, the community is showing improvement. The security officer, when asked to apologize, did so. Mondal sees this as a growing awareness of political correctness.
“People learn what language to use,” Mondal said.
The activist sees this as a small step in the right direction, considering how important language is. After the play, the organization has seen major shifts in the campus conversation. They’ve even been asked to perform outside the campus, and are currently working to set up shows at other universities around the city.
Throughout our conversation, Mondal’s speech was interwoven with ideas of prominent Western thinkers.
“Art for art’s sake is a fascist project. We [JASG] firmly believe that,” Mondal said, paraphrasing German critic and philosopher Walter Benjamin.
However, according to Mondal, many great Indian social activists influence his work as well, notably BR Ambedkar, a Western-educated Indian who devoted his life to improving the status of India’s “untouchable” class, of which he was a part. Similarly, hijra recognition came both from Western NGOs and also the third gender’s long recorded history in South Asia.
While there are many ways countries all over the world need to improve their issues with gender, seeing activist groups like JSAG and OSAC work to make changes locally is a crucial first step to seeing progressive changes around the globe.
Ben Poor is a junior American Studies major studying abroad in Hyderabad, India during the Spring 2014 Semester. He can be reached at benpoor1@gmail.com or on Twitter @WklyBPoor.
Ranking majors contradicts mission of liberal arts education
Ever since I decided to become an Art History and Visual Arts and Spanish double major, people (mostly adults) have bombarded me with variations of the same question: “What are you going to do with that?” Regardless of the phrasing, the implication — that these majors are not marketable — still rings loud and clear. As the prospect of beginning the more-permanent job hunt draws nearer and my senior comprehensive thesis looms, I began to worry about the practicality of my majors beyond graduation. However, I find comfort in a recent revelation of mine: Majors and degrees acquired at a liberal arts college do not have to directly correlate with a profession. I accept that I probably will not become a neurosurgeon or hold a position in government office, but that is not because I chose to not major in biochemistry, politics or Diplomacy and World Affairs (DWA) as an undergrad. It is because I have no desire to pursue any of those professions. I am not limited by my major.
The liberal arts degree has successfully shattered the notion of a hierarchy among majors in terms of practicality and relevance to the real world. The weight a liberal arts degree holds in the professional world is not emphasized enough, especially to undergraduate students. These days in the competitive job market, employers are looking less for the name of the undergraduate major and more for skills that can be applied to any position.
The notion of major practicality is a concept that seems to have evolved primarily in the last 20 or so years due to the increasingly difficult job market. While the same core career paths, such as medicine and law, remain consistent in terms of demand and popularity, new professions that do not have a corresponding undergraduate major have emerged. Job seekers increasingly desire professions such as social media coordinating and event planning due to their involvement in public relations. Many find these professions (and others) more appealing than office work in a cubicle, regardless of annual salary. These positions do not require an undergraduate degree in event planning or social media management, nor do they necessarily need to be temporary positions while searching for more permanent, higher-paying professions. Occidental students seem married to the idea of perfectly coordinating their major to their future careers.
The most popular majors at Occidental include economics, biochemistry, politics, DWA and psychology. But when students majoring in those fields are asked exactly what they want to do upon graduation, their career choices do not always parallel their major. The underlying truth is that everyone at Occidental is getting the same liberal arts degree. The nature of a small, private liberal arts college is that we do not have isolated schools for the various fields, nor do we limit students to solely taking classes within their major.
I can talk anyone’s ear off about the evolution of the male physical form in marble sculpture throughout Ancient Greece or the trials and tribulations of Federico García Lorca’s life as shown through his poems and novels. But my expertise extends much further beyond the specific skill set associated with my majors. I, like anyone else majoring in, for example, English and Comparative Literary Studies, Critical Theory and Social Justice or Latino/a and Latin American Studies, can form a thesis, think critically and present an argument.
I will graduate from Occidental in 2015 with a diploma that reads “Bachelor of Arts in Art History and Visual Arts and Spanish Studies.” My grade point average will only affect me, and my degree is no more or less important or relevant than the next. No undergraduate major is more or less practical than the other. An individual who majors in politics or economics is not more intelligent than anyone who chooses to major in, say, Japanese studies. Professionals and students alike must abandon the expectation of pairing undergraduate majors with careers because if not, the job market will surely suffer from a dearth of hirable applicants.
Hannah Teskey is a junior Art History and Visual Arts and Spanish double major. She can be reached at teskey@oxy.edu or on Twitter @WklyHTeskey.
Yuca Kosugi
Yuca Kosugi is a senior Economics and Diplomacy and World Affairs double-major and East Asian studies minor from Boring, Ore. She has been working at The Weekly for three years and is the news co-editor this year. Yuca also competes on the varsity swim and dive team, is an OCE fellow and an upper division resident advisor. This past summer she interned at a Russ Reid, a full-service marketing agency in Pasadena that serves non-profits.
@WklyYKosugi
Occidental community should show more support for athletics
Roughly 40 percent of Occidental students compete in some form of athletics in a given school year. A large percentage of them are members of highly competitive NCAA Division-III varsity teams. But if one was to ask a random student walking across the quad whether or not they had recently attended a particular sporting event, the answer would most likely be no.
Currently, the women’s lacrosse program sits on top of the SCIAC standings and has garnered multiple national top 25 votes from the Intercollegiate Women’s Lacrosse Coaches Association (IWLCA). Women’s water polo currently ranks No. 6 in all of Division-III. Yet, attendance from the general student body at one of their games can drop all the way into the single digits.
The average student who is not personally invested in a sport did not choose to attend Occidental because of an ingrained allegiance to a team or a passion for big-time college athletics. While students at UCLA or USC may have made their college decision in order to cheer for childhood sports heroes or fill the bleachers at legendary venues, students come to Occidental almost exclusively for the academics.
However, the fact that we do not have a Division I program does not mean that the student-athletes are any less dedicated or passionate about their craft. Between morning lifting sessions — which can can start as early as 5 a.m. — and competitions that can take up entire weekends, Tiger athletes put in an incredible amount of time and effort. They put in all the difficult work without an athletic scholarship, showing that they play for the pure love of the sport.
This commitment and enthusiasm on the part of the student-athletes should translate into much higher levels of support from the rest of the student population.
Just like competing for a team, attending a sporting event is one of the few activities that can bring people from all walks of life together and unite them behind a singular cause. Instead of complaining about being stuck in an environment with a dearth of social activities, students could attend the myriad of sporting events that are available throughout the week. If everyone attended a soccer or basketball game, it would be entertaining, plain and simple.
This editorial represents the collective opinion of The Occidental Weekly Editorial Board. Each week, the editorial board will publish its viewpoint on a matter relevant to the Occidental community.
Alumni should communicate frustrations to administration, not Telefund
Annual giving to Occidental last year amounted to over $18 million, or 4 percent of the school’s annual budget, according to the 2013 annual report. Much of this fundraising is thanks to Telefund, a team of student callers who reach out to alumni and parents for the donations that make many of the activities of Occidental students possible. However, recent negative publicity surrounding the school has made it increasingly difficult for these callers to perform their job, and while they are not the perpetrators of problematic actions taken by the school, they often bear the brunt of parent and alumni anger.
The past several years have not been kind to Occidental College’s reputation. From allegations that the administrators silenced sexual assault survivors to the firing of long-time Campus Safety officer Lt. Joseph Cunje, scandals have slowly eaten away at the image of the school alumni and parents hold in their minds. Some alumni and parents choose to voice their frustrations by abstaining from donating. Instead of voicing their concerns with the administration, frustrated community members have berated Telefund callers for the school’s actions. For the students who work at Telefund, this can be mentally and emotionally exhausting. The negative publicity has even caused Telefund leaders to cancel shifts, which spares workers from the diatribes but reduces their pay.
Some of this is understandable. Telefund workers call alumni asking for donations on behalf of the school, which has alienated many people with its actions. However, it is important to distinguish the student workers from the administration. They are not calling to bankroll the controversial decisions made by the school; they are calling to secure funding for scholarships, financial aid, athletics, improved facilities and numerous other programs not covered by tuition, student fees and room and board. Given that the bulk of this money ultimately benefits students, the community should be commending Telefund instead of berating them.
Donors can stipulate how they want their funds to be spent, ensuring that their money goes to causes they support. While outrage from alumni and parents may be warranted, it should be channeled in ways that do not harm the students who they are trying to protect. Telefund employees work hard to ensure that students are provided with various opportunities to learn and grow on campus. If alumni are concerned that the administration is inhibiting this process, they should discuss their dissatisfaction with the administrators involved in making those decisions.
This editorial represents the collective opinion of The Occidental Weekly Editorial Board. Each week, the editorial board will publish its viewpoint on a matter relevant to the Occidental community.
