Giant Steps Press Welcomes Two New Students to Its Internship Program

Giant Steps Press is pleased to welcome two new interns to its publishing and promotion team: Emily Rivera and Betty Araya. These undergraduates develop professional-level aptitude through learn-by-doing publishing projects with GSP co-founder Paul Kirpal Gordon. 

Ms. Rivera, a third-year senior at Hofstra University’s School of Communication, is a Public Relations major with a Photography minor. A member of the Alpha-Theta Beta sorority and its chairperson in Public Relations, she is also a member of the Yoga club; GiveKindness; SP!T, a poetry club; and WRHU, the campus three-time, Marconi-award-winning radio station where she writes, produces and broadcasts. 

Born in Queens and raised on Long Island, she brings skills in website and book design as well as marketing, interviewing, copy writing, photography and videography. Her essay, “I Dare You: Reflections on Identity,” is part of the curriculum of Writing Studies Composition 1 at Hofstra. It has been of great service for first-year, first-semester students coming to terms with their own identities as learners (https://giantstepspress.blogspot.com/2018/10/i-dare-you-reflections-on-identity-by.html).

Ms. Araya, a third-year student, is majoring in Global Studies and Journalism and minoring in Creative Writing. Born in Ethiopia and raised in the deep South, she is making her mark as the Assistant Features Editor for the Hofstra Chronicle, as a tutor at the university’s Writing Center, and as a peer teacher in the Writing Studies and Rhetoric Department. She brings skills in copy editing for Taking Giant Steps Press blog as well as interviewing authors and reviewing their works.

Her essay, “The Revolution Is Love,” is part of the curriculum of Writing Studies Composition 2 at Hofstra. It has proven to be greatly beneficial to students interpreting films by Wim Wenders, Jamie Uys, Lena Wertmuller and Nicholas Roeg (https://giantstepspress.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-revolution-is-love-20-by-betty-araya.html). More recently, she was the MC and co-producer of “Walt Whitman Meets the Great American Songbook” last Spring with GSP first’s intern Benny Gottwald.

Mr. Gottwald graduates this May. His four essays at Taking Giant Steps Press blog are part of Hofstra WSC 1 and 2 curricula, and his piece “El Chapin” has been featured in the undergraduate journal The Dangling Modifier as well as the syllabus of trans-lingual scholar Sarah Alvarez. In addition to his role at GSP, Mr. Gottwald is in the process of completing his debut novel, Looking Up, as well as his first album of original songs.

Since his introduction to GSP, Mr. Gottwald has taken on the role of Musical Director. In three campus concert performances (https://www.thehofstrachronicle.com/category/arts-andentertainment/2019/4/22/when-walt-whitman-became-a-jazz-artist) over the last three years, his insightful eye and ear to Whitman’s poetry, his band leadership as well as his arrangements of jazz standards and his own songs, have taken GSP-sponsored projects to new heights. An aspiring New York jazz musician and songwriter, Mr. Gottwald studies with Dave Lalama, a Hofstra music faculty member who has played with Buddy Rich and Stan Getz. In addition to being musically involved with GSP, Mr. Gottwald has worked as a freelance copywriter, book designer, and editor with various clients. After graduation, he is moving to Brooklyn when he will take up his diverse passions full time.

The Uplifting Effects of Unfamiliarity in Walkabout & The Gods Must Be Crazy by Grace Langella

When the act of change is thought about by humans, it tends to be linked to many negative emotions and actions. This tendency for humans to directly correlate change with negativity results from all of the stress and anxiety that overcomes them once put into situations of unfamiliarity. Because of the disoriented feelings we get once exposed to something new, humans keep themselves tied to a monotonous lifestyle that holds them back from experiencing a new way of living. Although being fixed on a rigid way of life brings feelings of comfort and safety for humans, there is an importance that needs to be shed on breaking away from a repetitive lifestyle in order to understand the valuable disparateness that exists in the world. When exposed to differences that break them out of their comfort zone, humans tend to experience culture shock, for they have no idea how to behave in situations that are new and uncommon to them. Because of how easily people crack under the pressures of unfamiliarity, we are able to see how fragile homeostasis really is and how much one’s energy can drop as a result. In both Jamie Uy’s The Gods Must be Crazy and Nicolas Roeg’s Walkabout, we are able to see the fragility of homeostasis and the drastic impact it can have on one’s life; whether one comes from an isolated, indigenous community or Western society, an abrupt change can be traumatic to survival and cooperation between members of a society.

For the Kalahari Bushmen, cooperating with one another is never an issue; living in apartheid South Africa, everyone goes about their day as they please, making sure to maintain a sense of peace and community. Contrary to Western civilization, the Kalahari Bushmen aim to keep their society simple by refraining from focusing on technological advancements and things that can disrupt the serenity in which they live. In order to show the great contrast between societies and draw a satirical depiction of Western civilization, Jamie Uys incorporates a voiceover in the beginning of the film, which comments on the need for people living in Western society to reinvent themselves every fifteen minutes (Uys, 10:03). By commenting on this ridiculous way of life, Uys makes it clear that Western society follows a structure that is needlessly strict, restraining humans from reaching a point in their life that is well balanced and valuable.

In The Gods Must be Crazy, Jamie Uys paints a picture of a civilization that is perfectly balanced and valuable for everyone that is part of it. Although the Bushmen’s prestigious society seems to be indestructible, their ideal lifestyle gets turned upside down and ruined once an unfamiliar object arrives and dominates the way that people behave. As a Coke bottle falls from the sky, it is seen as an “ubiquitous byproduct of the civilized world [that] becomes both a tool and an object of jealousy when a Xhosa-speaking Bushman, Xi, discovers it and brings it to his tribe” (Gottwald, par. 2). Once Xi brings the Coke bottle into his society, an immediate outbreak occurs and people that once lived “collectively, enjoying and praising nature,” begin to turn on each other and create disharmony in their once tranquil society (Eshetu, par. 3). At first, the Bushmen look at the Coke bottle in confusion, unsure of what to do with such an unfamiliar object; however, they eventually realize how great of an impact it can have on their everyday lifestyle, which causes their behavior to change and the fragility of homeostasis to be exemplified. The people within Xi’s society become filled with jealousy, anger, and violence because “for the first time in their lives, here was a thing that could not be shared because there was only one of it [...] a thing they never needed before became a necessity” (Uys, 10:28). Using the Coke bottle to “represent something so vast and unique as civilized society,” Uys makes it evident that anything that comes from Western civilization, even something as insignificant as a Coke bottle, has the ability to poison any balance and social dynamic that once existed in the Bushman’s society (Antoine, par. 4).

Another situation that Uys includes in his film to exemplify the negativity of Western civilization when compared to indigenous life is Kate’s experience as she moves from a civilized lifestyle to a more natural one. While living in Western society, Kate spends her time as a writer for a city newspaper; in doing so, she finds herself “letting social norms control her and what she writes about” because “instead of writing about something that peaks her curiosity, she is limited by convention to write about topics that are ‘sweet and light’” (Spellman, par. 5). After realizing that she is bigger than the bounds that limit her in Western society, Kate moves to South Africa where she finds her unique intelligence to be a factor of progression rather than regression in society. Upon her arrival into the Bushman civilization, Kate is taken in with open arms and praised for her willingness to educate and expand their ways of thinking—completely contrasting the experience she had while living in Western civilization. By having Kate’s experiences be drastically different in the two societies, it shows how harmful Western civilization really is. In Western society, Kate aimed for making a change by expressing herself through her writing but was so constricted by the limits of society that she was forced to quit. 

Being constricted by the limits of society is something that people living in Western culture experience every day; however, it does not seem to bother them because they are brainwashed into thinking that living such a limited life is completely normal. Viewers are able to see the consequences of this mindless acceptance through The Girl and her little brother in Nicolas Roeg’s Walkabout as they venture into the Outback and find themselves in need to connect with nature. Because The Girl and The Boy have grown up “in a world where they learned proper etiquette, were taught to get educated to ensure future employment, and were given food instead of having to hunt for it,” they find themselves completely lost the moment they are put into an unfamiliar situation and forced to adapt (Bellesheim, par. 2).

As time elapses and The Girl and The Boy meet an Aboriginal who is willing to help them survive, their lack of knowledge and inexperience of other cultures is exemplified even further when The Girl is unaware of the language barrier that exists between her and the Aboriginal as she attempts to ask him for water. Viewers are also able to see the inexperience of The Girl and Boy the moment that The Girl comments on her brother’s appearance, exclaiming, “You must look after your blazer. It’s got to last. We don’t want people thinking we’re a couple of tramps” (Roeg, 34:28). The Girl’s exorbitant concern about the way her brother looks in the middle of the Australian Outback, as they are barely surviving and getting through each day, goes to show how poorly Western civilization prepared them for times where they would be exposed to a new way of living that is completely different from anything they have ever experienced before.

When people are exposed to something that they have never experienced before, there tends to be various ways in which it is handled. For the Kalahari Bushman, the exposure to a foreign object, such as the Coke bottle, initially caused chaos throughout society; however, once they realized that the bottle was not worth the trouble it was causing, Xi walked to the end of the Earth to throw the bottle in the sea and allow his society to go back to living in tranquility. 

Although the return to homeostasis was easy for the Kalahari Bushmen, it was not as easy for The Girl as she returned home from the Outback and realized everything she left behind will never be attainable for her ever again. As Roeg displays The Girl grown up with her husband as he speaks about his promotion at work, viewers are able to see her in another world, ignoring everything he says, as she thinks back on her time in the Outback where life was much simpler and filled with happiness. Looking at how different both situations of aberration resolve, it becomes evident that real living is being one with nature through a more simplistic way of thinking; however, the only way humans will be able to understand this is by testing limits, experiencing culture shock, and comprehending the fragility of homeostasis.

Works Cited

Antoine, Myrtchena. “What Do You Do with Trash: A Review of WALKABOUT & THE GODS MUST BE CRAZY.” Taking Giant Steps, 2017, https://giantstepspress.blogspot.com/2017/03/what-do-you-do-with-trash-review-of.html.

Bellesheim, Allison. “Walkabout: Where the Wild Things Are.” Taking Giant Steps, 2017,

https://giantstepspress.blogspot.com/2017/02/walkabout-where-wild-things-are-by.html.

Eshetu, Hanna. “Pursuit to Restore Serenity.” Taking Giant Steps, 2018, https://giantstepspress.blogspot.com/2018/11/pursuit-to-restore-serenity-by-hanna.html.

Gottwald, Benny. “Putting Masculinity on the Chopping Block.” Taking Giant Steps, 2018, https://giantstepspress.blogspot.com/2018/02/putting-masculinity-on-chopping-block.html.

Roeg, Nicolas. Walkabout. Perf. Jenny Agutter, David Gulpilil, and Luc Roeg. Twentieth Century Fox, 1971. Film.

Spellman, Jennie. “The Dark Side of Civilization.” Taking Giant Steps, 2018, https://giantstepspress.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-dark-side-of-civilization-by-jennie.html.

Uys, Jamie, Director, writer and director. The Gods Must be Crazy.

Horribly Evocative, Grossly Inspiring: All Too “Swept Away” by Sofie Ramirez

Horribly evocative---these are the words I first used to describe Lina Wertmuller’s Swept Away. Watching the film elicited a very harsh emotional reaction and evoked some painful memories that I would have rather avoided, but Swept Away was created for that very reason. What I once took as the romanticization of a horrible issue was actually the opposite; Wertmuller made this film so that people could no longer hide in the silence of issues such as sexual abuse and rape. It feels as though she had accessed all of these negative feelings for the sake of change so that, instead of staying trapped in fear, I felt a call to action. She showed such inhumanity in her film so that we could strive for humanity in our everyday lives.

I realize now that the film was an attempt “to force [the audience] to think critically on societal issues with an objective morality, without romanticism or hatred of different concepts in their entirety, and by union of the most beneficial aspects of each system to create an objectively better world” (Hoffman, par. 7). However, I have to admit that my original reaction was not so comprehensive. Upon first seeing the movie I was devastated; I sat there with tears streaming down my face wondering why I needed to watch such graphic things. Some memories that I had been denying, things that I pretended never happened, were fighting their way up to the surface, and I blamed the movie for causing me so much pain. Clouded by anger and disgust, I was willing to accept the film’s criticism as an insult to women everywhere, pushing the feminist movement back for years to come. But more importantly, I was ready to sit in silence once more, thinking I could go back into my bubble, to lie to myself and say that things as horrible as this did not really happen to people and that it never happened to me. But then I was faced with a question, “What are you going to do: stay shocked or use those emotions to empower yourself to make change through your writing?” (Gottwald). So now I look at Swept Away with the new lens of social reform. I want to be a part of the conversation that Wertmuller has started. I went from seeing Swept Away as horribly evocative to grossly inspiring.     

It was not an easy feat to go from being absolutely disgusted by this film to using it as a catalyst for both personal and societal change. This issue became especially apparent during class discussions as the only things I would ever discuss were the scenes of graphic violence and rape. The nuances of the film were not lost on me; I understood the hypocrisy and sanctimony of it all. It was “incredibly ironic that the communist, who ostensibly fights for a classless society, sets up a diminutive sexist hierarchy as soon as the reigns are his to snap” (Hoffman, par. 5). I understood that through throwing away the shackles of society Gennarino and Rafaella could give into more primitive desires and live with no restrictions. I saw this, I truly did, but no matter what angle the class presented, my mind was ever fixated on the rape---but more so than that, the denial that rape had ever occurred. After days of class discussion, I had heard many people say that the scene in which Rafaella was chased, beaten, stripped, pinned down and eventually has sex with Gennarino (while unfortunate) was consensual because she technically agreed to it (Wertmuller, 01:06:00). Some argued that Rafaella was given a choice and did not have to sleep with Gennarino, but she did so repeatedly so it could not be counted as rape. The illusion of free will makes it so easy for people to deny that rape has occurred, but there is a danger to taking the word yes at face value and refusing to see everything that was manipulated in order to elicit that response and this manipulation has a name. It is called sexual coercion and it “is unwanted sexual activity that happens when you are pressured, tricked, threatened, or forced in a non-physical way” (Office on Women’s Health, par. 1). Rafaella faced the threat of starvation, physical abuse and even murder (Wertmuller, 01:32:00). When thinking about her options and the freedom she possessed in her situation, she tells Gennarino, “I feel like that rabbit you killed” (Wertmuller, 01:15:00). She saw herself as nothing more than prey that was hunted down and slain by a predator, a pitiful creature with no autonomy whatsoever. “Swept Away is not portraying the love between a tamed woman and the dominant man who puts her in her place; rather, it is a story about a cold mockery of love born from fear and abuse meant as a means of survival, not affection” (Knight, par. 2). Someone who has sex under these conditions does not do so out of genuine consent but out of a feeling of helplessness.

Wertmuller succeeded in her task to spur a homeostatic upset which forced me to come to terms with the reality of my own situation as well as the injustice of the world. Her film was powerful not only due to the vivid portrayal of issues of domination and sexual abuse but because of the social climate that she drew upon as a model for her story. Wertmuller created this film during the cinematic movement of Commedia all’taliana, “the genre [that] came in response to political unrest (legalization of divorce, abortion, etc.), poverty after WWII and other social issues…  as a way to talk about serious topics without creating something that felt like a lecture” (Garber, par. 2). Even though Wertmuller’s work served as a criticism of Italy in the Seventies, it also serves as an accurate commentary on today’s society.

One issue plaguing society that not only allows but encourages violent actions like those committed by Gennarino is the mentality of toxic masculinity. This idea that “men had to be tough, had to be strong, had to be courageous, dominating — no pain, no emotions, with the exception of anger — and definitely no fear; that men are in charge [and] women are not” (Porter 0:11)” is the reason sexual violence occurs. Toxic masculinity is not a natural mindset; it is a learned behavior, “a sturdy, poisonous branch on a tree built from social constructs” (Marking, par. 6) and it is constantly reinforced. While some men are taught to put masculinity “on the chopping block” as they know “its culture attempts to disguise dominance as benevolence… [that] has normalized values that debilitate not only men but women as well” (Gottwald, par. 9), these men are few and far between. The majority of “men are taught to… view [women] as property and the objects of men… an equation that equals violence against women” (Porter 09:20). This perception does not say that all men are doomed to commit such atrocities as the ones that were done to Rafaella or the ones that were done to me; it is to say that men are much more likely to commit these acts if society constantly encourages the mindset that men must dominate, regardless of the consequences. Toxic masculinity takes the blame off of men, as it is their right to control, and in some cases even shifts the blame onto women. When confronted with the horrifying reality of rape, some people will say things that echo the mentality that the woman “asked for it,” as “if these women [had] acted as society dictates a proper lady should, perhaps the men would not feel the need to break them down and build them back up again” (Rudegeair, par. 3). This “taming of the shrew” creates a vicious cycle of enablement, as men are encouraged to be sexually aggressive and submission, as women are taught to be meek and obedient.

Demanding social change and reformation is not enough when one does not have the complete knowledge of the systematic oppression that needs fixing. That is why, though it is shocking, it is important to “represent the decades of damage done by previous generations that lived in the shadow of ignorance all their lives. [So that] young people are forced to ask themselves the question: if it were up to me, how would I repair the broken heart of the world?” (Storms, par. 7). It is easy to stew in anger and point fingers at Wertmuller, to claim she is not a feminist and that her film is just an actualization of the male fantasy or a romanticization of rape (Ebert, par. 2). It is much harder to accept that Swept Away is something that we need to see in order to wake up and see how we have been socialized so that we may take back the narrative of sexual abuse. Wertmuller’s film is a testament of strength and shows that “victims have the ability to leave their abusers and regain their freedom, and that women do not have to be tethered down by men that wish to control them” (Knight, par. 8). Watching the film provides the audience a chance to shed light on the dark chasm of rape and to help pull people out of it; it is a chance to say “I am in pain and that’s okay; I need help and that’s okay. I don’t need to keep what happened to me a secret, and I don’t need to be ashamed. I was victimized but I refuse to be a victim, and I will not let this hold me back for the rest of my life” (Ramirez). This film gave me a realization that now is the time to take back my power and to live my life free from the fear of victimization. I will not be swept away by empty promises, but instead demand real change. Regardless of whether or not it is proper, I will be grossly inspired to find my voice and never let anyone take it away from me again.

Works Cited

Ebert, Roger. "Swept Away Movie Review (1976)". RogerEbert.com. Romano Cardarelli, 20

Feb. 1976. Web. 13 Apr. 2017.

Garber, Cerena. Class Discussion. 29 March 2019

Gottwald, Benny. “Putting Masculinity on the Chopping Block”. 06 February 2018.

https://giantstepspress.blogspot.com/2018/02/putting-masculinity-on-chopping-block.htm

Gottwald, Benny. Personal Communication. 11 March 2019.

Hoffman, Isaac. “Interpreting WALKABOUT and SWEPT AWAY”. 05 March 2017.

https://giantstepspress.blogspot.com/2017/03/interpreting-walkabout-and-swept-away.html

Knight, Lindsay. “Swept Away: An Illusion of Affection Stretched Too Thin”. 18 October 2018.

            https://giantstepspress.blogspot.com/2018/10/swept-away-illusion-of-affection.html

Marking, Alexis. “‘Boys Will Be Boys’ Until They Turn into Abusive Men”. 04 February 2019.

https://giantstepspress.blogspot.com/2019/02/boys-will-be-boys-until-they-turn-into.html

Office on Women’s Health. “Sexual Coercion”.

https://www.womenshealth.gov/relationships-and-safety/other-types/sexual-coercion

Porter, Tony. "A Call to Men." TEDX. TedX Women 2010, Washington DC. 30 Mar. 2017.

Lecture.

Ramirez, Sofie. Journal Entry. 27 March 2019.

Rudegeair, Anna. “The Same Old Story: Tamed Women and Their Misogynistic Male

Counterparts”. 28 February 2017.

            https://giantstepspress.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-same-old-story-tamed-women-and.html

Storms, Samantha. "Passion’s Dark Side: Roeg’s Walkabout vs Wertmüller’s Swept Away.” 08

December 2016.

https://giantstepspress.blogspot.com/2016/12/passions-dark-side-roegs-walkabout-vs_6.html

Wertmüller, Lina (Dir.). Swept Away. Perf. Giancarlo Giannini and Mariangela Melato. Romano

Cardarelli, 1974.

Pursuit to Restore Serenity by Hanna Eshetu

In the parched wilderness, six hundred miles away from civilization, Bushmen continue to exist; environed by nature and family, they live a lifestyle some denounce as “savage.” In truth, the natives inhabiting the Kalahari Desert are “the most content people in the world” (Uys 0:02:54). However, as human beings, they too can stumble on unfamiliar behaviors. In this case, they are influenced by an item as strange and superficial as a Coca-Cola bottle. Despite sanctioned segregation transpiring in South Africa, the 1980’s allegorical comedy, The Gods Must Be Crazy, directed and written by Jamie Uys, portrays a diverse selection of cultures through a selfless and humorous story-line of human interplay. Uys depicts a fun tale of a bushman, Xi, played by N!xau, on a walkabout-like quest to reach the “edge” of the world, to rid an evil gift bestowed upon his tribe. En route to restore serenity, he casually encounters persons whom he presumes are almighty Gods rather than the next-door, sophisticated, blue-collar urbanites. The collective witty liaison that each character shares with one another ridicules the ludicrous notions of apartheid.   

For centuries humans have annihilated one another over collateral differences that are indeed biologically shared by all. Amidst the devastating era of African colonization, invaders not only diminished treasured traditions, but they altogether enslaved African citizens. As if claiming private and personal property was not enough, conquerors, especially in South Africa, further mandated legal bigotry against its own people. The statutory division known as apartheid permitted higher status to the white conquerors, leaving the Africans to become second-class citizens and legitimately inferior in their own home; this system “racially classified individuals and then denied fundamental human rights” (Tutu). Similar to the racial caste system, Jim Crow laws, once granted in the United States, sought “to limit the aspirations of blacks” as well as emphasize a ferocious means of law enforcement (Auguste). Apartheid’s stigma included its derogatory laws, not to mention its ironic intent declared on paper as a “call for equal development and freedom of cultural expression” (Sahistory). The powerful force of the divergent protesters shone heavily on its immorality, and they ceaselessly objected to the senseless law’s false representation, exposing its irony. In spite of this disaster, the making of the film The Gods Must Be Crazy persisted.

       

The merging powers of both the privileged and underprivileged flared heightened resistance against ignorant segregation, extending hope and inspiration. It proved such an inspiration that director Uys administers humor through casting diversified actors and designing their exceptional personas in his mockumentary. The film paints a relationship between two distinct cultures assisting one another notwithstanding their cultural barriers. The “pretty, dainty, small and graceful” Bushmen and the white “civilized man” differ in language, appearance and demeanor (Uys, 00:01:33). Xi’s tribe does not recognize aggression or animosity; nevertheless, they have no need to claim ownership because they live collectively, enjoying and praising nature. On the other hand, “civilized man refused to adapt himself to his environment, and instead he built his environment to suit him” (Uys, 00:06:12). The two very different groups have a peculiar encounter that spawns an incredible adventure. Xi’s mission leads him to stumble on the “gods,” jaunty microbiologist Andrew Steyn and his mechanic Mpudi. Although at first they have a slight misunderstanding, later they befriend one another and genuinely offer compassion and empathy toward Xi. Interestingly, Mpudi alone has previously experienced a miraculous interchange among the Bushmen. It appears to have further advanced his level of moral development and sense of understanding to the environment around him (Kohlberg), not to mention enabling him to comprehend their unique click-like utterances. The irresistibly engaging bond forms between these men as they find themselves helping one another on a deeper level than they previously imagined. So, as the two bizarre societies clash, spontaneous hospitality sparks instead of hostility.

         

The idiosyncratic friendship that ignites between the Bushman and the two civilized men demonstrates Uys’s opinion on naturally peaceful human interactions and benevolent selflessness. Even though apartheid was staunchly advocated and enclosed around the production of the film, Uys still “violates” a few of its regulations and proceeds forward. A segment of the heinous law suggests that, “to have a friendship with someone of a different race generally brought suspicion upon you, or worse” (Sahistory). Regardless, the film advanced. Uys persisted in writing the story of solidarity between two people who do not share similar culture but do share the same tongue. Xi embarks his journey in the sophisticated land but finds himself surrounded by “societal rules” that are invisible in his eyes. He and his tribe believe in a universal religion similar to that of the Australian Aborigines, that is, Dreamtime: where all living spirits are “part of one vast unchanging network of relationship which can be traced to the Great Spirit ancestors” (Dreamtime). Because he believes in universal sharing, he unintentionally attempts to feast on another’s goat. Much as he innocently tries to share it with the owner himself, he sadly winds up enclosed behind walls. Mpudi, being the only “civilized man” who can communicate Xi’s language, defends him in court but fails to keep him out of jail. The mechanic was devastated so he confides to Steyn announcing that Xi, “gonna die for sure. He never seen a wall in his life, now he got walls all round him… I want to get him out” (Uys, 1:23:54). The dedication put into rescuing the innocent Bushman acts as a foundation forging a cherished bond. The two men put their privileges and work aside to allow a voice to the one who was misunderstood. This theme of altruism infused with comedy repeats all over.

         

Omitting the imposed genocidal creed, South African director Uys defies its absurd dogma extracting it with humor. The comically brilliant film emphasizes natural responses all humans have at least experienced once, such as clumsiness and awkwardness. These traits are specifically enacted by the amusing character of Andrew Steyn. The film entails abrupt funny moments that build the plot. Steyn’s persona stands out the most and highlights his silly behavior, especially aside the glowing character of Kate Thompson. Uys hilariously dramatizes his particular attribute: “His inability to purport himself … creates sexual tension, and even portrays Andrew as clumsy and dumb [;] in reality, he is merely trying to accommodate Kate in an environment that she is not accustomed to” (Gottwald, Par.5). In addition to Steyn, Xi is also a hilarious character. Since he comes from a complete paradoxical lifestyle compared to the modern world, his discovery of modern innovations is playfully exhibited. Mpudi teaches Xi how to ride one of the vehicles, and Steyn later asks him to drive it. Xi’s attempt is not successful at first, but when he drives facing backwards, it humorously works out for him. It is impressive to watch him struggle but succeed with modern gadgets (Uys, 1:32:12). In rendering humor, Uys creates scenes with Steyn’s persona and includes Xi’s innocence and complete disorientation as part of the human emotion that anyone, regardless of race, can relate to. In an interview with the New York Times, Uys states, “Everybody’s funny, whether white, black or brown…  you like to see the funny side of the human condition, and you don’t see their color'' (Klemesrud). This is the unofficial theme and purpose of his film, and Uys made sure to emphasize the propensity of humor within each persona, again disregarding notions of apartheid.

         

The art of bravery is another major theme that Uys brushes upon. Saturated with the humor of each psyche, selfless acts are displayed all throughout the story line. An unrecognized heroine in this plot is Kate Thompson. She illustrates incredible valor. In the beginning of the film she relinquishes her journalism occupation to teach in a small town that gravely lacks instructors. Andrew Steyn becomes her guide to the village, but her determination further prompts her to risk her own life to save the ones of her small pupils. The villain, Sam Boga, threatens the lives of children to save his own and helpless Kate is bearing the dilemma on her own. She loudly expresses the needs of her children, regardless of her being captive with them as well. “The children need to rest.” Moreover, tempting the leader, she proclaims, “Are you scared you’ll spoil your image if you admit you let them escape?” (Uys, 1:26:45). In her moments of gallantry, she constantly provides agency and comfort toward the young. Again, she too abandons her privileges when she decides to teach a minority group. Similar to the legendary Neerja Bhanot, who lost her life protecting children on her flight from a hijacker’s bullets, Kate risks her existence to shield children without question as well (Neerja). When affiliated with a crisis, charting through it “demonstrates how a heightened vulnerability signals the emergence of a potential strength, creating a dangerous opportunity for growth” (Gilligan p.139). These actions require concealing narcissistic impulses, that in turn, ignite a realm of empathy and altruism.

The ferocious intruders have unimaginably ruptured South Africa ruthlessly implying explicit commands to separate skin from soul and disguise respect with neglect. Nevertheless, the dynamic voices that roar across the globe, in spite of an injustice, reflect a deeper, larger comprehension of a post-colonial and post-conventional moral awareness (Kohlberg). Uys applies such consciousness through the intimate alliances that the hilarious and courageous characters possess, as well as indirectly defying the laws of apartheid. Being extraordinary souls enfleshed in capable and mighty bodies, we must accept and celebrate the differences we bear for the real pursuit of the film is to help us lift the burdens from one another.  

Works Cited

Auguste, Ralph. “Apartheid vs Jim Crow.” Academia.edu - Share Research, www.academia.edu/10496111/Apartheid_vs_Jim_Crow.

Baden, Graham T. “Film Analysis - The Gods Must Be Crazy.” Regarding Race, Nation, and Our Future, 5 May 2015, http://grahambaden.com/2014/04/04/the-gods-must-be-crazy/ .

Bhanot, Neerja. Pan American Pursuer. Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 11 Apr. 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neerja_Bhanot. 

Dreamtime. “Dreamtime Meaning.” Aboriginal Art & Culture Alice Springs Australia, www.aboriginalart.com.au/culture/dreamtime2.html.

Gilligan, Carol. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Harvard University Press, 2016.

Gordon, Kirpal. Class discussion 2 Feb. 2018.

Gottwald, Benny. “Putting Masculinity on the Chopping Block”. Taking Giant Steps. Feb.6, 2018.  

Klemesrud, Judy. “'The Gods Must Be Crazy’ -A Truly International Hit.” The New York Times, 28 Apr. 1985, www.nytimes.com/1985/04/28/movies/the-gods-must-be-crazy-a-truly-international-hit.html.

Kohlberg, Lawrence. Lawrence Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development. 1958.

Sahistory. “A History of Apartheid in South Africa.” South African History Online, 15 Mar. 2018, www.sahistory.org.za/article/history-apartheid-south-africa.

Tutu, Desmond. South African religious leader, anti-apartheid and human rights activist.

Uys, Jamie, Director, writer and director. The Gods Must Be Crazy.  

Amethyst and Amnesty: Rethinking Drinking in the University by Benny Gottwald

In life, as it is in Greek myth, drunkenness is dangerous. This is common knowledge. That being said, convincing anyone who enjoys drinking to renounce alcohol on those terms alone would be a pointless endeavor. Most people understand the lethality of alcohol and choose to responsibly, sensibly imbibe. This understanding, however, doesn’t simply appear out of nowhere; it is learned.

Much of it is learned in college, where roughly half of all alcohol consumption is done by underage students (Stephenson). Going to parties and drinking is a popular weekend activity; one could argue it is a staple of college life. Despite the apparent danger and illegality of underage drinking, most of us do it anyway. This was also the case in Ancient Greece, and the Greeks had their own cultural way of warding off alcohol’s dangerous effects. Today, the most frightening part of drinking, for young people, is our limited experience. When incidents do occur, inexperienced party-goers are forced to learn their limits the hard way. Young drinkers, unknowing of their tolerance to alcohol, often place themselves in this situation while their peers panic and nervously contemplate what to do next.

Hofstra has a policy in place to ensure that next decision is wise. It’s called “medical amnesty.” It aims to “ensure that those individuals who require assistance for themselves or a friend who may have consumed excessive alcohol or drugs will turn to the appropriate personnel to seek emergency medical assistance without fear of reprisal for doing so” (Hofstra University). The policy’s greatest strength is not only about getting students the help they need; it is about dispelling the apprehension that most bystanders feel in the face of punishment. It morally transcends the law, prioritizing the health and safety of students instead. Every Hofstra student should be aware of this policy. Whether we choose to drink or not, realizing the benefits of medical amnesty guides us towards a greater understanding of our university’s perspective on drinking. Medical amnesty teaches us how to best navigate the culture of college partying, both as bystanders and as active participants. It defends us from the lethality of booze, and from our fear of punishment which far too often prevents us from calling for help.

The ancient Greeks had their own defense against drunkenness. The myth begins with the god of wine and revelry, Dionysus, who one day spots a beautiful young maiden walking by herself. In his drunkenness, the god decides to pursue her, intending to use his heavenly wine to ease her into his company. Little did he know, however, that the young girl was walking to pray at the temple of Artemis, Greek goddess of chastity. Seeing Dionysus approach, the girl prayed to her goddess, begging for her help to remain chaste. In response, Artemis swiftly transformed the maiden into a white crystal, protecting her. In awe of the girl’s chastity, and as a tribute to Artemis, Dionysus poured his ambrosial wine over the white crystal, turning it to a deep purple. The maiden’s name was Amethyst, and the precious purple gem draws its name from her. Ancient Greeks were fond of amethyst; they crazily believed the stone could protect them from drunkenness. Amethysts were carried by party-goers and goblets were often embezzled with the gorgeous stones in the hopes that they might shield their owner from a long night of vomiting.

While modern science can disprove the amethyst as an antidote to drunkenness, it cannot dispel its sentiment. Those who enjoy drinking, should they go too far, need a system in place that better guarantees their safety and, if necessary, offers them a much-needed learning opportunity. Medical Amnesty is that system, and Hofstra’s Department of Public Safety officers are the gems which guarantee its effectiveness. Author Jade Chu, in her piece “Public Safety Saves Lives,” writes, “Even though we have a strict rule with no alcohol on campus, Public Safety will never get you in trouble for something like this, or tell your parents. Their job is to make sure that you get the help you need” (Chu). Public safety officers are firm but friendly, even in situations that call upon medical amnesty. When we truly understand the everyday goal of Public Safety officers—to ensure the safety of all students—our urge to fear them disappears.

I experienced this phenomenon firsthand one night in late September, when a good friend of mine drank more than he could handle and had become terribly sick. Sitting next to him on the curb outside our residence hall, I tried my best to reassure him that he was going to be alright. My efforts alone were not enough to quiet his mind, which was no doubt scared and disillusioned. When he finally tilted his head up from the ground, he looked at me and said “I wouldn’t blame you for calling Public Safety.” I did as he said, and an officer was quick to arrive. He was comforting to my friend, who anxiously asked if he would get in trouble for his situation. The officer kindly replied, “Nobody’s in trouble here. Don’t worry.” As we sat waiting for the ambulance to arrive, I asked him, “So, do you get these kinds of calls often?” He snickered. “All the time,” he said. “It’s what we do.” That night I discovered how hugely influential a simple change of attitude can be, and how brave students can become as soon as their fear of punishment is lifted.

Several weeks later, in my interview with Bob McDonald, I discovered that every member of the Public Safety staff is as benevolent as the officer I had met that September night. I had the opportunity of talking with Mr. McDonald, Associate Director of Public Safety, about medical amnesty and Public Safety’s practice of it. “There’s been a change,” he told me, “not so much of attitude, but of services.” His enlightening explanation of the department’s role, in handling alcohol or drug related incidents, described Public Safety as a “conduit.” Public Safety officers are the first responders to any incident, of course, but they are also the effective conduits through which distressed students receive the services and care they need. “If you see it, call it.” He continued, “You don’t have to worry about repercussions. I think students do want to help other students, and the fact that there is amnesty means there’s no stigma attached to it” (McDonald). Public Safety, and the medical amnesty policy, make the safety of students their top priority, and it sends a positive, progressive message.

This approach—alleviating risk of punishment in return for the safety of students—was not originally Hofstra’s idea. While this university has gracefully implemented the policy, medical amnesty has been on the minds of university presidents ever since 2008, when John McCardell had an idea. As the President Emeritus of Middlebury College, McCardell was preparing to speak at a meeting of the Annapolis Group, comprised of 120 college and university presidents, when he and several of his colleagues from within the group sparked a debate surrounding the effects of the current drinking age. Their conversation was centered around the “culture of dangerous, clandestine ‘binge-drinking’—often conducted off-campus” and recognized that “alcohol education that mandates abstinence as the only legal option has not resulted in significant constructive behavioral change among our students” (Amethyst Initiative).

McCardell’s conversation expanded in size as his colleagues within the Annapolis Group began gravitating towards his idea of rethinking university attitudes towards drinking. Instead of vehemently enforcing the current law so frequently circumvented by students (at off-campus parties or with fake ID’s), McCardell’s idea was to reexamine the traditional disciplinary approach to college drinking. His movement became known as The Amethyst Initiative, and fellow presidents who participated in the discussion became its signatories. Today the initiative has 136 signatories, and while Hofstra is not yet on the list, it certainly echoes the sentiments of the Amethyst Initiative in its attitude towards alcohol. The morals that underpin these policies and conversations indicate huge progress on the part of colleges and universities. Today the topic of conversation is less often about the law, and more often about the safety of all students.

As university students ourselves, it’s important that we listen in on these conversations as best we can; the decisions vested in our university’s administration determine our freedom and our safety. The ancient Greeks had no method for testing their defense against drunkenness; their cultural explanation for its importance, the story of Dionysus and Amethyst, was a strong enough basis for their belief in the purple stone’s powers. As college students in the 21^st century, we should take a valuable lesson from the drinking culture of ancient Greece: strengthening our belief in the things that protect us will only make us safer. Let’s create a culture that reveres Public Safety officers as the guardians they are, and let’s share our stories of their kindness and dedication. They have been there for us in our time of need, and they have fostered experiences that only help us grow. If we can boast that “what doesn’t kill me makes me stronger,” we can also admit that learning to live without danger is wisdom stronger than strength itself.

Works Cited

Amethyst Initiative. "Statement." The Amethyst Initiative. Choose Responsibility, n.d. Web. 01 Nov. 2016.

Braid, Fara. "History and Legend of Amethyst." International Gem Society. IGS, n.d. Web. 27 Oct. 2016.

Chu, Jade. "Public Safety Saves Lives: The Essential University Service." Taking Giant Steps. Giant Steps Press, 14 Feb. 2016. Web. 30 Oct. 2016.

Hofstra University. "Policy on Alcohol, Illegal, and Other Controlled Substances." Community Standards. Hofstra University, n.d. Web. 28 Oct. 2016.

McDonald, Robert K. Personal interview. 07 Nov. 2016.

Stephenson, Steve. "Prevalence of Underage Drinking." Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. JH Bloomberg School of Public Health, July 2011. Web. 01 Nov. 2016.