The Daily Reveille
Thursday, September 3, 2015
page 13
Swift critics should focus on other aspects of new music video INFRANGIBLE ICON JOHN GAVIN HARP Columnist “If Taylor Swift’s video is set in Africa, why is she white?” asked basically everyone on the Internet this week. Taylor Swift’s “Wildest Dreams” music video hasn’t even been out for a week, and it’s already inspired numerous think-pieces suggesting the sexy Safari romp co-starring Scott Eastwood glorifies colonialism and presents a white-washed Africa. “We are shocked to think that in 2015, Taylor Swift, her record label and her video production group would think it was okay to film a video that presents a glamorous version of the white colonial fantasy of Africa,” NPR contributors Viviane Rutabingwa and James Kassafa Arinaitwe wrote in their clip commentary. Daily Dot writer Nico Lang criticized the video, writing, “The video wants to have its oldschool Hollywood romance but ends up eating some old-school Hollywood racism, too.” I rewatched the clip numerous times to ensure I wasn’t
missing anything. If being offended by something is #CoolForTheSummer, count me in. The 4-minute-long clip’s plot revolves around Swift and her co-star filming a movie in an imperialistic Africa, featuring vivid CGI animals and Old Hollywood costumes. Swift throws a few tantrums about the male character being “so bad but he does it so well,” but then realizes she loves him, and it’s implied — because Swift’s brand is PG-13 — they have sex in a safari tent. Other scenes involve a plane, a giant wind fan blowing Swift’s dress, sunsets, lions, giraffes and stereotypical African sights. Suddenly, it’s revealed Swift and her co-star weren’t in Africa — they were actually filming on a set in California. Swift eventually realizes her lover is married and leaves the movie’s premiere in tears. It’s a by-the-books Swift music video. After my 19th time watching it, I realized I was not offended by the music video. However, I found the part where Swift kicks up her leg next to the CGI lion to be sexually arousing — which concerns me, because I thought I had a pretty decent hold on my sexuality. “But wait,” I thought, “I saw like three black people and the
liberal Jewish girl complain about this on Facebook. It’s obviously insensitive, and I’m just not getting it because I’m white or something.” I watched the video again. This time, I noticed Scott Eastwood is good looking even though he kind of looks like he’s constipated, and it made me really insecure. Regardless, I still don’t find the video offensive. No, there aren’t any black people featured in the video’s African scenes at all — which is illogical because if Swift is in the middle of the Great Scramble for Africa, then where are all of the natives having their cultures stripped away and their villages raided? This is a white-washed, romanticized version of Africa. The video acknowledges that this Africa isn’t grounded in reality. It’s grounded in Swift’s character’s wildest dreams. The gruesome truths of colonial Africa don’t exist in Swift’s character’s fantasy. Can anyone blame her? If I’m having an intense sexual daydream about Scott Eastwood that’s set in Africa, I’m not going to envision the starving people, diseases and oppression that were all there too. Talk about a turn-off. To label Swift’s depiction
JORDAN STRAUSS / The Associated Press
Taylor Swift arrives at the MTV Video Music Awards Aug. 30 at the Microsoft Theater in Los Angeles. of Africa in the video as unrealistic is entirely appropriate. To label it as propaganda for #WhitePrivilege is not. I hate to be the white guy that says, “Oh, this isn’t about race,” but it really isn’t. The critics saying it is need to shake it off. Regardless of whether Swift is offensive, she’s still winning. At the end of the clip, a message says all proceeds from the video will be donated to African wildlife
conservation efforts. With each stream, money is donated to prevent another American dentist from hunting and killing a nation’s cherished lion. Where are the think-pieces on that? John Gavin Harp is a 20-yearold mass communication junior from St. Francisville, Louisiana. You can reach him on Twitter @SirJohnGavin.
Gun-free zones ineffective at stopping gun violence, harmful REAL SOLUTIONS FOR REAL ISSUES GARRETT MARCEL Columnist Gun control advocates are showing inconclusive results with their policies at best, and at worst, they are indirectly responsible for the deaths of thousands. Gun-free zones are only effective when every individual is screened before entering. Unless you are at the Super Bowl or a political convention, gun-free zones only invite criminal intent to commit mass murder. In a large auditorium at LSU or the LSU Student Union, I can’t imagine how many people would die before a police response. The gun-free zones on campuses and in theaters take away the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves. Look at history: The 1999 Columbine High School shooting only lasted one hour, but the police didn’t enter the school until two hours later. Fifteen students
died. The school was gun free. In 2007, a man walked onto the gun-free campus of Virginia Tech and murdered 32 people. Locking the doors to the engineering and sciences building, the perpetrator continued shooting until he killed himself 10 to 12 minutes after entering, right before police arrived. There were 26 children and faculty members murdered at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012. The police did not enter the gun-free zone until 10 minutes after the shootings began. To a criminal, gun-free zones are nothing more than a turkey shoot. We must rely on the citizens who can use firearms because the police will not respond in time. College students should be given the option to conceal carry on campus. A psychological check on individuals and cooperation with campus police would ensure the safety of all students. We can offer elementary and high schools armed protection by giving military veterans
The Daily Reveille EDITORIAL BOARD
Fernanda Zamudio-Suarez Rebecca Docter Jennifer Vance Quint Forgey Rose Velazquez Jack Richards
Editor in Chief Co-Managing Editor Co-Managing Editor News Editor Deputy News Editor Opinion Editor
positions to guard the grounds. They would need to pass a psychological evaluation, and it would provide jobs for these members of the community, offering real protection for the children. If gun-free zones won’t save you, confiscating guns will, right? Confiscating guns in the U.S. would work like it did in Australia. You are more likely to get killed. Advocates who praise Australia’s gun confiscation law, including our president, enjoy stating statistics like how the average firearm suicide rate after the bill declined by 57 percent and the average firearm homicide rate went down by 42 percent. Of course, the rates went down. It’s not rocket science to figure out this one. If you look at those numbers, they clearly state the average firearm suicide rate or the firearm homicide rate. How could these people kill themselves with guns or murder people with guns if the guns were destroyed? The tools of murder are not the issue. What the advocates of gun
control fail to mention is the homicide rate in Australia was higher for five years after the buyback program was completed in 1997. The homicide rate in 2002 alone was 20 percent higher. Any attempt to follow Australia’s policy in the U.S. would be impossible. Armed resistance would be encountered across the country, and it would end poorly for those implementing and supporting it. This doesn’t stop gun control advocates from trying to restrict the transfer of firearms. According to the Brady Campaign in 2013, seven states with the strictest gun control laws also have the lowest gun death rate, but this is only a partial truth. The FBI crime report for 2013 sheds light on the Brady Campaign’s statistics. Only two states with the strictest gun control laws were listed among states with the lowest murder rate. Two states with the fewest gun control laws also made that list. Hawaii was the only state with
Editorial Policies and Procedures
The Daily Reveille (USPS 145-800) is written, edited and produced solely by students of Louisiana State University. The Daily Reveille is an independent entity of the Office of Student Media within the Manship School of Mass Communication. Signed opinions are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editor, The Daily Reveille or the university. Letters submitted for publication should be sent via e-mail to opinion@lsureveille.com or delivered to B-39 Hodges Hall. They must be 400 words or less. Letters must provide a contact phone number for verification purposes, which will not be printed. The Daily Reveille reserves the right to edit letters and guest columns for space consideration while preserving the original intent. The Daily Reveille also reserves the right to reject any letter without notification of the author. Writers must include their full names and phone numbers. The Daily Reveille’s editor in chief, hired every semester by the LSU Student Media Board, has final authority on all editorial decisions.
the strictest gun control laws to make it among states with the lowest violent crime rate. Ironically, four of the states with the lowest violent crime rate had the fewest gun control laws. If anything, the statistics show you are safer from violent crime in states with fewer gun control laws. Gun registration is nonsense, but mandatory background checks should be instated given that they do not keep a record of any purchases. Anyone who has a history of psychological issues should be flagged on the database. That is an idea gun control advocates cannot get through their thick skulls. If people want to kill one another or themselves, they don’t need guns. All it takes is a little jealousy and a rock. It’s time gun control advocates face the facts: Gun violence isn’t the problem. All violence is. Garrett Marcel is a 21-yearold petroleum engineering senior from Houma, Louisiana. You can reach him on Twitter @Gret419.
Quote of the Day ‘Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.’
Nelson Mandela
politician, activist July 18, 1918 — Dec. 5, 2013