-
- |
-
- |
- 2
Here in XX-ville, we've long been fascinated by American Girl, the upscale doll company—excuse me, "premiere lifestyle brand"—that sells morals and history lessons alongside its hundred-dollar dolls (and their similarly expensive pinafores, trestle tables, chifferobes, and other painstakingly detailed accouterments). The New York Times ran an article this weekend about Rebecca Rubin, the newest American Girl, which (who?) goes on sale this Sunday. The piece describes the years of work and research that went into creating Rebecca—not just so that she'd be historically accurate, but also so that she'd be culturally sensitive. For example: Since "Jewish" is a religious category and not a racial one, what should a Jewish doll look like? (In as much as she'll look any different from the other Historical Characters, with their uniformly cabbage-like heads, button noses, and slight overbites.) What time period should she be from? (Which carries with it the awkward, unspoken question: At what point in America's history did Jews "matter most"?) And just how observant should Rebecca be?
I've always felt a little conflicted about the "ethnic" American Girls. On one hand, awesome! Ethnic dolls! But while every AG historical doll is a kind of cipher or avatar for a huge swath of something—you read about and play with Kirsten to learn something about "pioneer days"; Kit teaches you about "the Depression"—there's something that feels a little more essentialist about the ethnic ones. Maybe it's just because you know that they're probably going to be one-offs—now that we have Kaya, a Nez Perce girl, do we need a Sioux, too?—so each one has to stand for everyone who looks like her. (Isn't that always the trouble facing the model minority?)
It's clear from the article, though, that Rebecca has pre-emptively passed muster with most critics and watchdog groups. Contrast that with Disney's first African-American "princess" film, The Princess and the Frog, which doesn't open until December but has been getting slammed for months whenever new information leaks. (Dayo and I discussed the issue of not-black-enough prince Naveen in March.) The raw, passionate conversations that erupt on Jezebel whenever an editor posts on Princess are truly something to behold—you could write a whole American Studies dissertation on them.
So what does American Girl know about placating an audience that Disney doesn't? Is it simply because Disney is more of a behemoth, already saddled with a reputation for cultural insiduousness, that it's just a walking target? Are the issues involved in creating a Jewish character and an African-American one so different? And would we even be talking about them if Disney's Tiana and American Girl's Rebecca were toys for boys?
-
- |
-
- |
- 4
Great job, Obama! You've finally succeeded in getting somebody else to take some of those Guantanamo detainees off your hands. Your masterful diplomacy, although strangely ignored by more than 100 of our petitioned allies, has swayed the tiny island country of Palau to generously take a small group of the least dangerous detainees. Perhaps also helpful was the mere fee of $200 million we're paying them, which—as the Wall Street Journal points out—is a practical $10,000 for every citizen of Palau. On the heels of that good news comes yet more: Saudi Arabia is willing to take almost 100 of the most dangerous detainees. Details of that negotiation still to come.
I can't help but wonder if the same protesters who raged over America's abuse of detainees in Guantanamo will express the same level of outrage for the inevitably much worse treatment to come from Saudi Prisons. As one distressed Yemini family member of a detainee worried, it is unlikely the prisoners will have access to the American judicial system (let alone the American media) in Saudi Arabia. As Haitham Al-Marwalah, 16, brother of detainee Mohammed al-Marwalah, was quoted in the Yemin Times, "... we think Saudi Arabia is not fair."
But who ever said being fair had anything to do with it? Throughout the Guantanamo saga, I've struggled to understand why it's worth closing one of the most scrutinized and secure prisons in the world—especially in the aftermath of such intense public scrutiny. Symbolically it makes sense for Obama (I mean, Guantanamo is probably the only prison in the world that most people know by name), since once he closes it he's "solved the problem" simply by removing it from public radar. But in terms of rationality and national security, it makes just about as much sense as shutting a school because of inappropriate behavior from a teacher. Fire the teacher—definitely. But close the school?
Being president is about making hard decisions that are best for the country—rather than what's best for your personal image. I'm trying to be optimistic that Obama's Guantanamo grandstanding isn't indicitive of what motivates all his decision-making, but it's not the easiest position to hold after watching him be willing to gamble away taxpayer dollars, detainee welfare, and national security interests this time around.
