L

ast week, I got my ear 
pierced. I had wanted 
to do it for several days 

before, to change up my look — to 
try something new. 
There was, in other 
words, 
no 
larger, 

existential reasoning 
behind this desire, 
no deeper truth I 
thought a piercing 
would illuminate or 
help me enact.

But I was wrong. 

In the ensuing days, 
I’ve begun to regard 
my piercing as a sort 
of imprint on my own body. I’d 
never physically changed myself 
in such a permanent way before. 
After haircuts, sometimes I’d feel 
like a new person, walking down 
the street with a new swagger 
— or, if things went badly, with a 
new necessity to hide my face. But 
regardless, hair would always grow 
back and take its same afro-like 
shape that is a consequence, I am 
told, of my Jewish heritage.

I see myself in the mirror now 

and I see a body on which I have 
made my own imprint. I was 
given my body and the life that 
accompanies it by some existential 
level of chance, seed and egg 
meeting and floating off together. 
But now, my body has become 
my own. And I love this feeling, 
that there are ways to increase 
the amount of control I have over 
my life. That I can become more 
myself, more in touch with my 
own predilections and identities, 
and that as I do this, I get to better 
know myself through spontaneous, 
everyday actions. It did not require 
some profound shift in my everyday 
habits to feel this way.

I feel ready to find more ways 

to manufacture this feeling. To 
own my own life, in other words. 
To seek out instances in which 
my life can become more my own, 
not just the predetermined default 
setting that was given to me by 
incomprehensible 
coincidences 

that I did nothing to bring about.

And in the days since I got my 

piercing, this feeling has manifested 
itself in other ways. I have begun 
to write a play, which I hope can 
be performed in Ann Arbor at the 

end of next term, when I will also 
be graduating. In the play, I see 
an opportunity for a text that I 
can forever look back on and say, I 

wrote that there, during 
that time. A text that 
represents my time at the 
University of Michigan.

I am studying abroad 

this 
semester, 
but 

before I came here, I 
had planned to write a 
traditional thesis — a 
research essay guided 
by a set of research 
questions. But it has 
been extremely difficult 

to get in touch with advisers back 
in Ann Arbor and to establish the 
necessary consistent connection 
to help overcome this distance 
between me and familiar libraries, 
professors and resources. Too 
much work, I thought. Not worth 
it, since it will distract from my 
ability to be here. A feeling — 
probably overstated — that these 
advisers are too busy, or, at worst, 
that they do not actually care 
enough about my academic work 
to engage with me, unless I am in 
their office in person.

But the play I have now decided 

to write demonstrates my taking 
this wish to work into my own 
hands. To occupy the space, left 
vacant by both the silence from my 
advisers and the physical distance 
between me and Ann Arbor, in 
creative ways that speak to my 
own individuality.

I think this notion lies at the 

center of what we call “growing 
up.” That I, as a child, was cradled 
and nourished and supported 
by my upbringing — my family 
and friends whom I love dearly. 
That these relationships made 
me entirely dependent on these 
people, on these systems of 
familiarity and comfort.

And these people and systems 

are not constant. For example, Louis 
C.K., a person whom I have described 
to dozens of friends throughout my 
childhood as the figure whose life I 
would like to most closely emulate, 
has just been exposed as a sexual 
predator, creep and liar. 

C.K.’s standup routines and 

his Emmy-winning TV show 
portray a certain honest humanity 

that I always found powerfully 
endearing 
and 
refreshing: 
a 

messy, smelly, morally ambiguous 
portrayal of human life that I often 
felt reflected my own everyday 
experience grappling with my own 
insecurities and incapabilities.

But C.K.’s honesty, as it turns 

out, was merely a mask for his 
systematic 
manipulation 
and 

deceit of the women he assaulted. 
As he told stories of his own 
masturbatory fantasies onstage, 
to an audience of millions, we can 
only now begin to understand 
the ways in which these fantasies 
manifested 
themselves. 
It 
is 

sickening 
to 
imagine 
C.K.’s 

personal fetish being fulfilled 
by his unknowing, relentlessly 
laughing audience.

The social death of this personal 

hero provides an opportunity for me 
to emerge more singularly myself. It 
allows me to define my own desires 
and values, and not rely upon 
somebody else, who, as it has turned 
out, I did not know at all. 

And of course, I’m still more 

dependent on my upbringing than 
the vast majority of people have the 
privilege to be. My family allows 
me to explore all my interests. They 
fund my education, for which I 
am endlessly grateful. My friends, 
many of whom I have known my 
entire life, know me better than I 
know myself. And they can provide 
me with indispensable reminders 
of encouragement and love.

But this increasing sentiment 

of self-ownership shifts how I 
understand my background. I want 
to approach it as a springboard 
to leap into the world, to treat the 
people and the world that raised 
me as safety nets to fall back on if 
and when the world treats me, as 
my academic advisers did, with 
silence; to trust in the power of 
this love; to know that it exists, 
regardless of physical distance; 
and to use this trust as a tool 
for empowerment, to ignite my 
transformation into an individual 
who continues to make imprints — 
both physical and intellectual — on 
my own life.

“T

hey treat me like 
Cinderella 
around 

here,” 
I 
once 

exaggerated when I was little. I was 
never too interested 
in the general idea of 
princesses, but they’re 
a staple in the media 
diet of young girls. 
They line the toy 
aisles and are one 
of the main focuses 
of children’s movies 
and TV shows, so 
they’re easy for kids to 
connect with.

Despite 
their 

prevalence, children’s movies that 
feature princesses fail to capture and 
showcase a range of experiences and 
backgrounds. While the princess 
narrative usually brings to mind a 
helpless maiden waiting for a man 
to save her, like Snow White or 
Sleeping Beauty, there is a chance 
for the narrative to instead teach 
young girls to learn important values 
like determination, ambition and 
bravery and feature characters from 
diverse backgrounds.

Among the hordes of remakes 

of Cinderella, only a select few 
put women of color in the iconic 
role. I recently watched one of 
these, Rodgers & Hammerstein’s 
“Cinderella” from 1997, for the 
first time in over a decade. When 
I was little, I remember going to 
day camp and always asking to 
watch that movie when we had to 
stay inside. I’m sure this irritated 
everyone, but this was my movie 
when I was in elementary school 
and rewatching it showed me why 
I was so drawn to it. First of all, 
there’s so much color. It makes it 
easy to understand why I wanted 
to watch it all the time — the 
visuals are stunning. The ornate 
fabrics that the characters wear 
are beautiful and the color scheme 
for the ball scene is mesmerizing. 
I wanted to wear all the fancy, 
funky dresses — especially the 

one Cinderella, played by actress 
and singer Brandy, wore at the 
ball. The visuals pair brilliantly 
with the music. The songs and 

dance 
numbers 
are 

the definition of extra: 
they’re hilarious, over 
the top and they stay in 
your head for at least a 
week. When you have 
Whitney 
Houston 

singing in a movie, you 
know the songs will 
become 
iconic. 
The 

song “Impossible” has 
been stuck in my head 
since I heard it in the 

early 2000s.

What was most important for me 

in elementary school was how diverse 
the cast was. It featured Whoopi 
Goldberg, Whitney Houston, Paolo 
Montalbán and Brandy. It’s funny 
how this movie had no problem 
casting actors of colors while most 
movies, including the more recent 
2015 adaptation of “Cinderella,” 
struggle to do this. Seeing a princess 
that looked like me, Black with box 
braids, and seeing a fairy godmother 
with curly hair was rare and special. 
Aside from the amazing score, scenes, 
colors and hilarity of the movie, the 
image of Brandy as Cinderella has 
stuck with me since I was little. I, 
like every child, looked to find myself 
among the images on the screen and 
in books. “Cinderella” gave me a 
character to identify with, unlike most 
media produced in the early 2000s.

The 
1997 
adaptation 
of 

“Cinderella” 
went 
against 
the 

standard of most Disney movies 
and princess movies of the time — 
but it was only one of a few movies 
that starred a woman of color. After 
seeing Disney’s animated renditions 
of “Cinderella,” “Snow White,” 
“Sleeping Beauty” and “The Little 
Mermaid” too many times on ABC 
Family, I felt that Disney was long 
overdue to release a movie about a 
Black princess.

Disney finally delivered in 2009 

with the release of “The Princess 
and the Frog.” I was too old to aspire 
to be a princess; they didn’t hold as 
 

important a part in my life as they 
did when I was little. But Tiana 
spoke to whom I hoped to become. 
She was smart, worked hard and 
was hopeful. In most narratives that 
involve women, especially princess 
narratives, the woman waits for a 
man to save her. But Tiana used her 
intelligence to save herself and that 
knuckleheaded prince who turned 
her into a frog.

You can say that princesses and 

princess movies are silly and that they 
are not worth paying attention to, but 
they are part of a larger discussion 
about what values we instill in 
children, especially young girls 
who make up the target audience. 
Movies like the 1997 adaptation of 
“Cinderella,” “The Princess and the 
Frog” and “Mulan” incorporate the 
stories of different cultures and areas 
into media consumed by elementary 
school children.

This gives them the opportunity 

to see themselves reflected in 
characters and also learn about 
other cultures. Evaluating which 
lessons these movies teach children 
is just as important as ensuring 
that the stories told are diverse and 
include characters from different 
racial or ethnic backgrounds. Are 
these movies emphasizing the old-
school princess tropes of waiting for 
“true love” or “Prince Charming” 
to solve everything or do they focus 
on the importance of standing up 
for yourself and individuality like 
in “The Princess and the Frog” and 
“Brave”? I want the word “princess” 
redefined; instead of the negative 
connotation it has of a “fair maiden” 
waiting for everything to be done 
for her, it should come to mean an 
independent, strong, courageous 
person of any skin tone.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, November 15, 2017

REBECCA LERNER

Managing Editor

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

EMMA KINERY

Editor in Chief

ANNA POLUMBO-LEVY 

and REBECCA TARNOPOL 

Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board. 

All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Princess

COREY DULIN | COLUMN

Imprints of an individual

Carolyn Ayaub
Megan Burns

Samantha Goldstein

Emily Huhman
Jeremy Kaplan

Sarah Khan

Max Lubell

Lucas Maiman

Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy 

Jason Rowland

Anu Roy-Chaudhury

Ali Safawi

Sarah Salman
Kevin Sweitzer

Rebecca Tarnopol

Stephanie Trierweiler

Ashley Zhang

Election wins should embolden Democrats 

NOAH HARRISON | COLUMN

S

ave for a special Senate 
race in Alabama, the 2017 
election cycle has come 

and gone. With only a handful of 
governorships and state legislature 
seats up for election, the 2017 cycle 
will ultimately have a minimal 
immediate impact on the balance 
of power. Yet, it nonetheless 
provides a significant gauge of 
current 
political 
sentiments 

nearly a year into Donald Trump’s 
presidency. 
Furthermore, 

it 
validates 
the 
Democrats’ 

opposition to President Trump 
and congressional Republicans as 
a legitimate strategy. 

The Democratic Party assuaged 

many of the lingering concerns 
from their string of special 
election defeats earlier this year 
with a dominant performance. In 
the two most high-profile races 
of the night, the party reclaimed 
and retained the New Jersey and 
Virginia governorships. Though 
victory in New Jersey was widely 
expected, in Virginia, Democrat 
Ralph Northam won by nine 
points despite polls projecting a 
closer race.

Though less covered by the 

media, Democrats made massive 
gains 
in 
state 
legislatures, 

retaking the Washington state 
Senate 
and 
possibly 
gaining 

control of the Virginia House 
of Delegates, depending on the 
final vote tallies in several still-
uncalled districts. This success 
in state elections is of particular 
interest 
to 
the 
Democratic 

National Committee, given the 
Democratic Party’s loss of over 
1,000 
state 
legislative 
seats 

nationwide since 2008.

Collectively, 
these 
victories 

will potentially yield dividends 
in 2020, when congressional 
districts are redrawn. Perhaps a 
more meaningful, if less tangible, 
result is the validation of the 
Democrats’ vigorous and unified 
opposition 
to 
the 
legislative 

agenda of President Trump and 
congressional Republicans.

This 
strategy 
most 
visibly 

manifested itself in the Democrats’ 
loud and bitter opposition to the 
Republican Party’s many efforts 
over the past year to “repeal and 
replace” Obamacare. None of the 
plans put forward by the GOP 
garnered any Democratic support, 
but rather prompted Democrats 
to launch a massive publicity 
campaign aimed at mobilizing 
the populace against the bill and 

securing the opposition of moderate 
Republicans like Susan Collins, 
John McCain and Lisa Murkowski.

Though it was the opposition 

of these moderate Republicans 
that ultimately doomed every 
iteration of the GOP’s health care 
bill to be put before the Senate, the 
coordinated and unified opposition 
of 
congressional 
Democrats 

certainly contributed. In fact, Sen. 
McCain, R-Ariz., whose eleventh-
hour opposition killed one of the 
GOP’s most promising attempts, 
the “skinny repeal,” cited the 
universal opposition of Democrats 
as a reason for his position. He 
asserted that health care legislation 
should not be passed on “a party-
line basis.” 

Furthermore, 
the 
extended 

battle over health care drew voters’ 
attention to the issue and sharply 
increased public opposition to GOP 
repeal-and-replace plans. Though 
GOP efforts to repeal Obamacare 
limped on into September, at this 
point, Obamacare portends to 
remain the law of the land for the 
foreseeable future.

Trump’s 
historically 
low 

approval ratings, coupled with the 
GOP’s equally abysmal favorability 
marks, had already lent credence to 
the tactics employed by Democrats 
during the health care debate. 
However, the past week’s elections 
further justified this strategy of 
defiant opposition and should give 
Democrats confidence in upcoming 
political battles, including the 
GOP’s proposed tax plan.

That tax plan, in which the 

Congressional 
Budget 
Office 

projects will add $1.7 trillion to the 
national debt and primarily benefit 
the wealthiest Americans, is ripe 
for criticism. Since the House 
and Senate have already passed 
budgets for 2018, Republicans 
do not seem poised to enact 
conservative tax reform.

Though tax reform would 

greatly please top Republican 
donors, it likely will be less well-
received by the electorate as a 
whole, especially given that the 
bill could actually raise taxes on 
many middle-class Americans. 
Its potential passage portends 
to develop into another political 
liability 
that 
Democrats 
can 

exploit in 2018.

Though 
the 
notion 
that 

Democrats would be united 
and resolute in their opposition 
to Trump may seem obvious, 
Democrats 
often 
splintered 

during 
contentious 
debates 

over Trump’s nominees — even 
in the earlier months of the 
Trump administration, when 
Trump’s mandate was arguably 
at its peak. Understandably, 
red-state Democrats considered 
vulnerable in 2018 — such as 
Sens. Joe Manchin in West 
Virginia, Heidi Heitkamp in 
North Dakota and Joe Donnelly 
of Indiana — felt a need to 
protect themselves. They broke 
themselves party ranks to vote 
in favor of some of Trump’s more 
controversial Cabinet nominees 
like Jeff Sessions, Scott Pruitt 
and Ben Carson. These three 
senators were also the only 
Democrats to vote to confirm 
Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to 
Supreme Court.

Since 
these 
confirmation 

battles, Sens. Nancy Pelosi and 
Chuck Schumer have successfully 
kept the party united. This task 
will presumably only get easier in 
the wake of last week’s elections, 
which should dispel notions about 
the Democratic Party’s supposed 
inability win elections.

The Democratic Party emerges 

from the 2017 elections with 
only marginally more political 
power, but a clear blueprint for 
the 2018 midterms and beyond. 
The 
Democrats 
are 
by 
no 

means guaranteed to perform 
well in 2018 — continued party 
infighting or unforeseen political 
developments could easily derail 
Democratic 
momentum. 
But 

the party can move forward 
emboldened with the knowledge 
that appeasing President Trump 
is unnecessary and perhaps even 
counterproductive to achieving 
electoral success.

These races were not direct 

referendums 
on 
the 
Trump 

administration 
or 
the 
GOP-

controlled 
Congress, 
yet 
the 

Democratic sweep still reflects 
the President’s mandate to govern 
is weakening. Those dissatisfied 
with the current balance of power 
appear motivated, representing 
an ominous sign for Republicans. 
The Democratic Party should 
enter 2018 confident that their 
unwavering 
opposition 
to 

President Trump and his agenda 
will yield both legislative and 
electoral victories.

Corey Dulin can be reached at 

cydulin@umich.edu.

ISAIAH ZEAVIN-MOSS | COLUMN

 Isaiah Zeavin-Moss can be reached 

at izeavinm@umich.edu.

 Noah Harrison can be reached at 

noahharr@umich.edu.

SARAH NEFF | CONTACT SARAH AT SANE@UMICH.EDU

ISAIAH 

ZEAVIN-MOSS

COREY
DULIN

