What's In The Box?

A lot of people find things they don't understand are intimidating.  It's a natural reaction.  If you don't know what's in a box labeled "X," it could be anything.  It could be a puppy, it could be a chocolate cake, but it could also be a tiger or a diamond-back rattlesnake.  Until you open the box, you don't know.   Some people find the chance that it might be a rattlesnake much more important than the chance that it might be a chocolate cake, so they presume this box labeled "X" is a threat and act like it.

I think that may be part of what's happening with some of the hate we're seeing lately with transgenderism.  For most of us, me included, the experience of transgenderism is utterly alien and quite far from our daily experience.  We make our physical gender part of our identity, and even people who understand that identity is a construct find it very difficult to see beyond it.   

Over the last fifteen years, a lot of LGBTQ people and their allies have been operating under the presumption that if they raise the awareness of gay and trans people, it will make the larger public more accepting of them.  The idea being that if we open the box and show the contents, people will see it's not a threat.  In many cases, that's worked.  It worked on me.

Some people are so concerned about the possible threat in the box that they don't want to look, even if it's open.  Efforts to raise the awareness of LGBTQ people and normalize their presence make some people feel threatened, like this thing they're afraid of is growing and being "forced down their throat," which is exactly the opposite of the original intent to show that LGBTQ people aren't anything to be afraid of or concerned about.

It's really hard to cross the lines of culture, sexuality, and identity.  These ideas become the core of how people define themselves, and far too many people don't feel confident enough of their own place in society to be accepting of people who are different.  Anytime you see somebody with a chip on their shoulder, jealously guarding their spot in the world, it's a pretty good bet they're going to have trouble with bigotry.  

It's particularly painful to see people who themselves were once marginalized because of their culture or race, or religion participate in the hate and rejection of LGBTQ people.  You'd think they would be the first to recognize this syndrome in other people, and most are, but some become even more reactionary, almost as if their seat at the table will be taken away if they allow someone different to sit next to them.   

This is one of those situations where I don't really know the solution.  I think there's some merit to staying the course and continuing to raise the profile of differently-sexualized people and continue to try and educate people that they are not a threat in any way.  There's going to be pushback.  The slate at the last session of the Mississippi Legislature is a pretty good example of push-back.  Recent political pressure to shut down the LGBTQ clinic at the University of Mississippi Medical Center is another example.  

All I can suggest is, don't respond to hate with hate.  Be firm but understanding.  Fear of the unknown is legitimate; continuing to try and make known the unknown is still the best course.  Maybe cut back on some of these basic cable shows exploiting the lives of teenage transgender people and focus more on the experience of adults.  A lot of people are responding with near violence to the idea of trans people participating in sexed sports.  It's actually a pretty rare event, but concern over it has exploded.  Maybe there's some merit to trying to understand and cooperate with these fears, even though it's really very rare.

Reaching out to people who don't fit the larger cultural patterns isn't a hill most people want to fight on.  It makes people wonder why you can't just go along to get along.  This is something Jesus specifically shows us to do, though.  There's a reason why he made a tax collector his disciple.  There's a reason why he told the parable of the Samaritan.  It's incredibly liberating for your own mind to take these lessons to heart and make them part of your life.  Living without fear of other people is one of the greatest gifts you can I've yourself.  

Bogart and the Anti-Hero

In 1935, a young actor named Humphrey Bogart (his real name) got his first starring role on Broadway in a play called "Petrified Forest" with costar Leslie Howard at the Broadhurst Theater.  Lance Goss directed the play at Millsaps several times, with the last one in the 90s with Paul Hough as Duke Mantee.  It would be Bogar's last major role on stage.

Bogart played a few small roles in films, some so small they were uncredited, but in 1936 he returned to Hollywood with a triumphant contract with Warner Brothers and shot "The Petrified Forest," again with Leslie Howard and introducing Bette Davis as Gabby, a role played by Christine Swannie at Millsaps.

Over the next five years, Bogart made almost fifteen films, all variations on the criminal he played in Petrified Forest, including his stint as a crooked lawyer in "Angels with Dirty Faces," and the Science Fiction thriller "The Return of Doctor X."  Bogart never doubted his abilities and fought with Warner Brothers to let him try roles that weren't criminals.  

In 1941, Bogart received the big break he wanted playing a new kind of character, dubbed the "anti-hero" he played the hard-boiled detective in "The Maltese Falcon" based on the hit novel by the same name by  Dashiell Hammett and also introduced Sydney Greenstreet who would act against Bogart again.  

Sam Spade reinvented Bogart as an actor and reinvented the entire genre of crime drama.  There are just a few films you can point to and say, "This changed the direction of the art form,"  "The Maltese Falcon" is one of those.  Again, Bogart would spend the next several films mostly typecast again, this time as the anti-hero detective, but his career was starting to be on his own terms. 

The success of Sam Spade did allow Bogart his first chance to really act against type.  In 1942, a small play called "Everybody Comes to Ricks" was the subject of the rising patriotism and anti-fascism in America as a result of the Pearl Harbor invasion.  Bogart was nominated for the Best Actor Oscar for playing Rick Blaine in "Casablanca."

In 1944, Bogart won the role of Harry "Steve" Morgan in the screen adaptation of Hemmingway's "To Have and To Have Not."  Hemmingway refused to write the script himself, so director Howard Hawks hired Jules Furthman to pen the first script.  Not pleased with the final product, Hawks hired Mississippi novelist William Faulkner to mend the script.  This film is perhaps most notable for introducing a nineteen-year-old Lauren Bacall to the world as Slim.  In his forties, a spark between Bacall and Bogart struck up that became a  Hollywood legend.  Humphrey Bogar and Lauren "Baby" Bacall made an unlikely love affair for the ages.

Bogart went on to play many more anti-heroes, but 1951's "African Queen" with John Houston and Katharine Hepburn, shot on location in Africa, remains one of Bogar's most memorable films.  Bogart finally got his Best Actor statue for playing Charlie Allnut.

In 1955, Bogart released "We're No Angles,"  still playing an anti-hero, but this time a comedy.  Co-starring Aldo Ray, Peter Ustinov, and Basil Rathbone, "We're No Angles" has been one of my Christmas tradition films since I first saw it on TNT in 1980.  

Bogart would make three more films, but a heavy smoker and a heavy drinker, he would die of esophageal cancer in 1957.  

Baby Bacall was thirty-two when Bogart died.  Bogart was fifty-seven.  Bacall bore Bogart two children.  A son named Stephen, named for Bogart's character in "To Have and To Have Not." and a daughter named Leslie Howard for Bogart's co-star and friend.  Hepburn and Spencer Tracy would visit Bogart in his final days.

Bogart and Bacall were both liberal democrats and fiercely anti-fascists.  Like many Hollywood liberals, Bogart was called before the Committee on Unamerican Activities to defend his political viewpoints.  Afterward, he wrote an article entitled "I'm No Communist," defending not only himself but those found in contempt of the hearings.

I've profiled a lot of actors, but Bogart is one of my favorites.  His is a very American story.

The Donor Wall

 Sometimes I feel like I've lived too long, like I've seen too much, like I've passed by too much.  

Today I went to the Two Mississippi Museums to attend a lecture on a book by Carolyn Brown and Carla Wall about the life of Thalia Mara.  

On the way in, I noticed the Donor Wall for the museum.  Anytime you see a non-profit structure, there's usually one of these.  I was early, so I scanned the names.  As you can see in the photo, it's a pretty wide wall.  I knew every name.  Some I haven't seen in a while because it says "foundation" after their name, and they've been dead for thirty years, but I knew them, Horatio, every one. 

About half were Millsaps people, either graduates or board members, or both.  If you ever question the influence Millsaps has had, look at the names on pretty much any donor wall in Mississippi.   A good portion of the were from Galloway too.  

Mississippi is like a big heavy barge trying to make its way up a slow river.  It takes an awful lot of people pushing on one side to make it change direction just a little.  That's what signs like these are.  They're a whole bunch of people pushing in one direction, trying to make things a little better.

Sometimes, it takes just one person to show a bigger bunch where to push.  Thalia Mara was a tiny lady, the daughter of Russian Immigrants, who showed up in Mississippi out of the blue like the Circus of Dr. Lao, and she taught us we could do better.  Because of her, we've been doing better since 1975, next week, we begin the twelfth iteration of the US International Ballet Competition right here in Jackson because of her.  

Jackson and Austin

Austin, Texas, is a progressive, arts-intensive enclave in the middle of one of the most conservative states in America.  It sounds like they'd be under siege, but it works for them, and it has worked for as long as I can remember.  That might be a model we can use in Jackson.  I think it's a model we're already using, even if it's not consciously so.

I'm aware that most of the city government looks at the whole Capitol Police and HB1020 thing as a bunch of peckerwoods trying to make them look bad.  There might even be something to that philosophy.  

Here's me out, though.  They're not gonna stop.  Getting mad about it is just gonna make them do it more because, to them, there are political points to be made by making Jackson progressives angry.  

Instead of fighting it, what I would do is I would lean into it.  I'd play up how the state of Mississippi has sent us all these shiny new police cars and all the shiny new policemen (that we don't have to pay for) and then really, really sell the idea that they're going to make our high profile areas, mainly the Fondren Entertainment District, The Downtown Entertainment and Museum District and the LeFleurs Bluff entertainment district as safe as your momma's pantry--and then hold them to that.  

In an area with a reputation for crime, having a bunch of new police, even if they were forced on you by people who hate you, is an absolute selling point, and a big selling point that we don't have to pay for can be a genius plan if you sell it right.

Of course, if you act like you appreciate what the white, conservative legislature is doing, they may quit doing it because they hate us and their constituents hate us, but there are ways around that.  It might even be a step toward making it so they don't score points by beating up on Jackson.

Squaring off against the governor and the speaker and whatever yay-who's are in the legislature isn't a sustainable plan.  Jackson ends up losing every time, and they win points with their people by beating up on us, even though it's hardly a fair fight since they have all the power.

If you finesse these people, though, if you can manage to maybe not show your entire hand and act like you really want to work with them, then Jackson can work its way into more control of these efforts, which will help assuage some of the legitimate concerns there are about over-policing.  

The current mayor comes from a culture of radical protests and combative cultural language.  His father was a master of that.  Radicalism works best when you have no power.  Radicalism becomes your power.  It gives you a voice that you otherwise wouldn't have.  Once you're in positions of power and shared power, radicalism starts to work against you because it makes other people not want to work with you.

I think it's possible for the Mayor to honor the work his father did and honor the alliances that come with that but really push forward with the idea that this is a new day.   Push forward the idea that a Black Jackson now shares power with their white neighbors, and as a good neighbor, wants to work with all the programs that come with being neighbors, including things like the Capitol Police, but also forge better and stronger relationships between all the metro police departments so you don't have this conflict that you see now between Jackson and Pearl, Brandon and Madison police.

We're so close to having the best of both worlds.  All we have to do is grab it.  Until we learn to grasp the concept of and live with the idea of our being a new, conjoined community, then we're gonna suffer a lot of the things we've been suffering.  

Working with somebody doesn't have to make you look subservient to them.  Think about Thalia Mara.  She was this tiny little woman with a weird accent and a whole bunch of gay friends who somehow figured out a way to make all these backwoods sons-a-bitches do exactly what she wanted, and she made it look like it was their idea.  I think that can happen again.  It just takes a change of perspective.