Re:mixed people (pun intended)

In this course we have looked at a few different stories that discuss what people in the Middle Ages may have thought about children born of interracial couples and the reflection skin color has on character. In The King of Tars the child that is born of a Christian mother and a Saracen (Muslim) father is literally a formless, monster baby. In the Man of Laws tale the child magically becomes pure white after being baptized.

One story we haven't read in class, though Professor Blake has mentioned it several times, is Wolfram Von Eschenbach's Parzival. Eschenbach takes a contrarian stance on the issue of interracial marriage in the form of Parzival's half brother Feirfiz. Feirfiz is the product of Parzival's Father's first marriage to the Moorish Queen Belecane. Because he has a European father and a Middle Eastern mother Feirfiz is said to have been born spotted. Eschenbach describes Feirfiz's complexion as being made up of white and black patches. His appearance is also compared to that of a magpie which sort of makes sense.

Despite Feirfiz's unusual complexion, he is never treated differently and is said to be quite handsome. He goes on to win a reputation for himself as the best knight in his land. He eventually takes his knighting skills over to Europe and unknowingly engages in a duel with his half brother. After Parzival breaks his sword over Feirfiz's helmet, the speckled knight refuses to continue because he would be forced to fight an unarmed man. The duel is declared a tie and the the combatants realize that they are half-brothers and become close friends. 

So, if Feiriz was so great despite being born of interracial marriage and not being a miraculous convert, why would Eschenbach create a speckled character? Perhaps the inspiration for his character really did have uneven pigmentation. There is a condition known as vitiligo that causes depigmentation of parts of the skin. This condition is fairly rare, affecting less than 1%, of the world's population. But, it is not uncommon and can affect people of any race. 

In 1986 Michael Jackson was diagnosed with vitiligo, a rare non-contagious disease characterized by pale patches on the skin. The causes are not known, but a range of genetic, auto-immune, and environmental causes are suspected.

Over the years Michael Jackson evolved from a charming, young, obviously African American performer into a different looking sort of personal altogether. It is thought that Jackson's case of vitiligo was a result of his use of skin bleaching products and a general lifetime effort of "beautification." Vitiligo is not always or caused by skin bleaching but it may be a contributing factor in some cases.

Music producer Quincy Jones, who worked with Jackson at the beginning of his transformation said, "It's ridiculous, man! Chemical peels and all of it. And I don't understand it. But he obviously didn't want to be black." Jackson's transformation is closest modern comparison to some of the stories we have read in which babies become white due to baptism (rebirth in Anglo-Christian culture). 

Maybe Feirfiz was a real person and Eschenbach assumed that their skin was that way due to mixed heritage. Maybe Eschenbach knew someone who had vitiligo and wanted to write a story in which someone who had speckled skin was as awesome as someone who was white. One thing is for sure though, the myths that people believe about character being a product or reflection of skin color still exist and in real life transformations aren't miraculous. 

Persian Portrayal in the movie "300"

 

300,  a dramatic film directed by Zack Snyder of the legendary battle of Thermopylae in Greece, involves three hundred brave Greek heroes squaring off against legions of monstrous Persian warriors in order to save their homeland. Many elements of the story, of course, have been exaggerated for the sake of making a blockbuster hit, but the most fascinating part of the film involves the way Snyder chose to portray the "enemy", the Persians, and the "heroes", the Spartans. Many of his choices reveal bias that seems to translate over from medieval portrayals of Saracens, while the heroes are given qualities that they, as bloodthirsty Greek warriors, may not have had in the first place.



The Persians are depicted as dark-skinned, sexually depraved, even monstrous creatures, with their leader Xerxes dressed flamboyantly and enjoying a harem of women, some of whom have physical deformities. Indeed, even Xerxes' ranks of soldiers include a two-headed monster. Many soldiers also wear masks, which dehumanize them even more (much like Storm Troopers in Star Wars). Xerxes also dresses very richly, wearing lavish armor and piercings, and he sits on a high throne even during battle, which indicates that he considers himself worthy of worship. He is inhuman and even sexually threatening. Even the cinematic effects involved in portraying the Persians are dark and tend to obscure their features, making them even less human. This distancing reminds me of the portrayal of Saracens in the works we've read so far: very rich, usually sexually driven (King of Tars, Sultan of Babylon) and very much inhuman. Snyder has stated that he wished to make the Persians more intimidating and monstrous, which makes senses from a director's perspective. What's curious are the ways he went about it.



On the other hand, Snyder had to humanize the Spartan forces. The Spartan warriors are famed for their discipline, but historically they were not great people. They disposed of babies which were not physically perfect, they killed one another as a matter of course, and they lived and breathed war. Snyder contrasted them with the Persians by making them austere and disciplined, fighting mostly naked against the heavily armed Persian forces, making them seem brave. They are also contrasted with the other Greeks they're defending, who are portrayed as "soft." The leader, Leonidas, is portrayed as a tough, incorruptible man of the people, fighting alongside his soldiers instead of atop a throne, as Xerxes does. It's also difficult to ignore that Xerxes is portrayed by a black man when it's more likely that he would have appeared Middle Eastern, while Leonidas, who was Mediterranean and would have had darker skin, is portrayed by the lily-white, Scottish Gerard Butler. This disciplined, white, uncorrupted model hearkens back to the portrayals we've seen of Christian leaders which fight against Saracens in the works we've read.

It seems that medieval visual prototypes of "good" and "bad" are still very much alive in popular media today.

Miscegenation in The King of Tars

The King of Tars is a story about the politics of race and conversion and though the matter of crusading is perhaps more implicit in this romance than in others, there remain several significant themes that play upon matters of religious warfare and conversion.
The first such theme is the matter of necessitated conversion. From beginning to end of The King of Tars, there exists a consistent depiction of Easterners as bestial threats to both the physical landscape and spiritual tenets of Christianity. The framing of the main narrative with two battles between Christians and Saracens highlights this distinction. In the first battle, the Saracens easily lay waste to the King of Tars' lands and people, stopping only when his daughter agrees to marry their sultan. The story concludes with the converted and transformed Sultan warring against the unconverted in his kingdom with the help of his father-in-law, the King of Tars. Those who do not convert by romance's end are hanged.

The beginning and conclusion of the romance suggest that coexistence between Christians and pagans is far from desirable, and that the only way to mitigate threat posed by a non-Christian is to exterminate them – either by warfare or, as also seen in this romance, through baptism.

 

Mixing race/religion in marriage in this story results in a deformed blob of a child with no distinct facial characteristics. This baby is a reminder of the troubles of mixing religions and races.The Sultan of Damascus prays to his idols and nothing happens. His princess then convinces him to allow her to pray and to baptize the baby. Once the child is baptized, he is restored to a normal human being, and the Sultan in awe of this transformation is baptized as well.At this point the Sultan's skin is changed as well from black to white showing the purity of the Christian religion.

This proves once again that Christianity is the best religion to be a part of in this time. But does this conversion really change a person??  In baptism, one is supposed to go through a transformation of spiritual and bodily conversion. This hybrid child is a result of failed conception and can only be saved through baptism. This story clearly says that Christianity is the preferred religion for people and if one does not believe in it, only evil things can result from their pagan religion.

The Contradictory Virgin Mother

The cult of the Virgin Mary in the Middle Ages seems incredibly out of place. This was a time where women were thought to be disgusting, dirty and even evil. But where Christians were trying to keep themselves separate and pure from their Jewish neighbors Mary came in as a mediator and saving grace. She did this both by saving said Christians from the Jews and by allowing these Jews a way of conversion. As the stories like “The Prioress’ Tale” and “The Child Slain by Jews” go, the Jews would kill a Christian child, a boy, and Mary would come to save him for his honor of her - with her seed or flower placed in his mouth/throat. But why Mary and not Jesus, a man and savior to the Christians? The answer lies in the contradiction that Mary is. She is a Virgin Mother. She saves the Christian boy by both seed and flower - male and female. She gives birth only to give her son to death. But most importantly she is saving and condemning, together. These stories end in the saving of Christians from their Jewish neighbors, but the young boy still dies, and more importantly the Jewish murderers are all put to death.

But this is not unique to the Middle Ages - let's look at Our Lady of Guadalupe, who gave Saint Juan Diego roses in bloom in the middle of the winter. The context she first appeared in at Guadalupe was very similar to the one in the Middle Ages. The Spanish Catholic conquest of Mexico was "threatened" by the indigenous Aztec population. With the violence of this conquest the Aztecs planned to revolt against and kill the Spaniards and this is where Mary comes in. By appearing to Juan Diego, a native of the land, adorned with Aztec symbolism and speaking to him in his native tongue Nahuatl while also charging him with the building a church on a hill northwest of Mexico City where she appeared to him, her goal was to convey her presence amount the local indigenous people. Her visitations had the effect of converting almost the entire Aztec population to Christianity - effectively ridding the Christians of the threat of pagans and spreading the faith. But, because of her appearance during her visitations the indigenous people of Mexico claimed her as their own as well – seeing themselves in her dark skin and eyes. And so she constructed a blended and new identity for the Mexican people.

This veneration of Mary has since spread to the United States with immigrants from Mexico. We find her especially in Los Angeles – on bumper stickers, hanging from rear-view mirrors, in street art and most notably on the arms, chests and backs of Hispanic gangsters. She has somehow moved from representing just conservative Christians to now also artists and gangsters. The tattoos of the Virgin Mary of Guadalupe on a gangster’s skin slow him to be both holy and dangerous, a sinner and saint. She, as a grace giving mother, becomes a sort of home for those who are out of place. Her darker skin color, while depicted in America, gives a home and voice to those outside the majority. And once she is imprinted on the skin she becomes, not only a necessary means of gang identification but also shows the compassion she stands for, because these gangs are often the only place where these Mexican immigrants have a sense of belonging.

 

Her power and popularity seems to come in her ability to mediate contradictions - she can be a saving grace, a converting force while not condemning some pretty horrendous acts - whether it be persecution of Jews or gang violence. It seems as though, while Mary can represent some wonderful things and at times be a connection between disparate cultures and religions (think of the way the Islamic faith venerates Mary) she can also be used to forward a cultures own agenda.

Flight of Dragons: Magic, Science, Dragons and Race. Yup just went there.

Flight of Dragons is a film from 1982 that was adapted from two books "Flight of Dragons" an art book by Peter Dickinson and The Dragon and the George by Gordon Dickson.
The realm of magic is being threatened by the realm of logic and the Green Wizard Carolinus decides that there isn't anything to be done but shield the magical realm from everything else. He calls his brothers the Blue Wizard Solarious, the Golden Wizard Lo Tao Zhao and the Red Wizard Ommadon to hear of his plan.

Can you guess which one didn't quite like his plan?

Ommadon wants to fight the humans and make science turn on them. The brothers aren't allowed to physically interfere because they made a pact not to harm each other so they register a quest. Just like in tales we read some races would make pacts to save themselves from war and align themselves so that way they'd agree not to hurt each other. But there are always ways around that. I mean we're dealing with wizards here. Take Merlin x3. This quest invokes Sir Orin Neville Smythe, dragons Gorbash and Smrgol and a leader of science, who we will learn is Peter, a shy and skeptical human who ends up getting himself in quite the predicament. (spoiler alert, magic puts himself inside Gorbash.....)

Here are your heroes! They are quite the unlikely bunch. Looks like the the magical world seems to be screwed right? However it's a fairytale/fantasy so I'm not giving you the ending but a slight hint.... ;)

























So what's my point? If you haven't noticed the wizards are all firstly separated by color. All set to rule over separate areas of the land. One is tied to water, one to earth and land, one to air and the last to fire. All the wizards are also of a different race. The green wizard is your typical old white European guy, the golden wizard is an Asian guy and the blue wizard of an Indian race, and then there's the red wizard, he's goblin meets giant ogre? Just like in the stories we read in class each race that fights for different lands or for different reasons can be distinguished by different factors whether by how they look or how they're culturally represented. In this movie they don't hint this as the main theme, in fact it's not truly hinted at all, but it's a concept to tie into the thought of race playing throughout medieval times. Why is the European wizard always portrayed as the old guy? Not just in this film but in the sword in the stone also? Apparently white wizards can't be seen as young guys. Race in the stories we read plays how a character is portrayed, the giants in Geoffrey's tales were portrayed as evil and malice, (which was an accurate description) and the Anglo-Saxon's the complete opposite, the knight in shining armor and the wise. Their fighting style and weapon choices fit along with their racial stereotypes and persona. Subtle idea that opens a window of opportunities for exploration past just the ideas of dragons and magic and science. Though we can save that for another post.

However off topic I have to post the link if you want an interesting take on learning about dragons. You can thank me later, or if you completely hate it curse me later.
(Disclaimer if you get the theme song in your head it will be there for days, apologies ahead of time.)
http://youtu.be/j0j0Bjy6hFc