BARBIE’S history: “Barbie was born in Germany in the 1950s as an adult collector’s item. Over the years, Mattel transformed her from a doll that resembled a ‘German street walker,’ as she originally appeared, into a glamorous, long-legged blonde. Barbie has been labeled both the ideal American woman and a bimbo. She has survived attacks both psychic (from feminists critical of her fictitious figure) and physical (more than 500 professional makeovers). She remains a symbol of American girlhood, a public figure who graces the aisles of toy stores throughout the country and beyond. With Barbie, Mattel created not just a toy but a cultural icon.” [Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F. 3d 894 – Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2002]
Another telling of Barbie’s history: “G&H alleges that Ruth Handler, a co-founder of Mattel, discovered the Bild-Lilli doll in Switzerland during a European trip in 1956, and that Mattel subsequently developed a similar doll, called “Barbie,” at Ms. Handler’s direction. Mattel describes the Barbie doll as possibly the most famous toy in history. It was phenomenally successful from the moment of its introduction in 1959, selling over three hundred thousand units that year, three million by 1961, and more than one billion to date. Today, Barbie products are sold in 150 countries, with annual worldwide wholesale revenues in excess of $2 billion… In 1964, the year following the dismissal of the California action, Mattel and G&H entered into several agreements relating to Barbie and Bild-Lilli. Mattel purchased G&H’s Bild-Lilli copyright and its German and US patent rights for three lump-sum payments totaling 85,000 deutschemarks (worth at that time approximately $21,600). In exchange for an additional payment of 15,000 deutschemarks ($3,800), the agreements also provided that upon the expiration of Marx’s license in 1970, its marketing territories would transfer to Mattel. Mattel agreed not to use the names ‘Bild-Lilli’ or ‘Lilli,’ and G&H agreed not to produce any dolls similar to Barbie or Bild-Lilli or to produce or sell any doll with the names ‘Bild-Lilli,’ ‘Lilli,’ or ‘Barbie’… During the nearly 40 years since the agreements were made, Barbie went on to achieve tremendous popularity, and Mattel reaped enormous financial benefits. It became the world’s largest toy maker, with Barbie as its flagship product line.” [Mattel Inc. vs Greiner and Hausser GMBH 10 (2003)]
Barbie’s official story: “1959. Barbie is born. Ruth Handler is inspired by observing her daughter, Barbara, play with paper dolls for hours, and recognizes the opportunity to champion and inspire girls by introducing a three-dimensional doll that shows them that they can be anything… 2022. Barbie introduces new Dr. Jane Goodall and Eco-Leadership Team Certified CarbonNeutral® Dolls made from recycled ocean-bound plastic.” [https://corporate.mattel.com/history]
‘It is not only Barbie in her namesake movie that is blanketed by an existential crisis.’
Barbie according to her creator: “I’m sure you’ve heard some of the criticism that’s been lobbed at Barbie in the last several years. Barbie cares only about clothes. Barbie’s ‘mind’ is filled only with Saturday-night dates and/or wedding plans. My response is if that is so, it’s because the little girl who is playing with her chooses to concentrate on those facets of a woman’s life. Unlike play with a baby doll — in which a little girl is pretty much limited to assuming the role of Mommy — Barbie has always represented the fact that a woman has choices.” [Ruth Handler with Jacqueline Shannon. Dream Doll: The Ruth Handler Story. Stamford, CT: Longmeadow Press, 1994, pp.43-44; https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/theymadeamerica/filmmore/ps_handler.html]
Barbie’s relevance: “At first glance, historians are likely to see Barbie as either the quintessential icon of American femininity, a symbol of female liberation.” [Miriam Forman-Brunell, https://muse.jhu.edu/article/316618/pdf] In the Global South (aka Third World), Barbie can get conflated with female oppression: “It was under the Marcos regime that ‘export-led production’ acquired a meaning beyond the selling to overseas markets of bananas or pineapples, and bras or Barbie dolls manufactured in Export Processing Zones. More significantly, through the Philippine Labor Code of 1974, it institutionalized labor migration and made the ‘warm-body export’ a commonplace in the daily existence of Filipinos.” [Delia D. Aguilar, “The Export of Philippine Women,” ATC 67, March-April 1997]
It is not only Barbie in her namesake movie that is blanketed by an existential crisis. In the Real World: “We do not grant a license for the American movie ‘Barbie’ to be released in Vietnam because it contains the offending image of the nine-dash line,” Vi Kien Thanh, head of the ministry’s Department of Cinema, had told the state-run Tuoi Tre newspaper. [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/warner-bros-defends-barbie-banned-vietnam-south-china-sea-map-rcna93013] Nationhood is still a touchy subject, which brings us to an event 60 years prior.
In June 1963, Tun Abdul Razak, Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya; Dr. Subandrio, Deputy First Minister/Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia; and Hon. Emmanuel Pelaez, Vice President of the Philippines and concurrently Secretary of Foreign Affairs, met in Manila to exchange views on the proposed Confederation of nations of Malay origin, “working together in closest harmony but without surrendering any portion of their sovereignty,” thus, supporting The Macapagal Plan. The Ministers’ satisfaction with the atmosphere of brotherliness and cordiality which pervaded their Meeting and the confirmation of their close fraternal ties took the form of the Manila Accord of July 31, 1963. Item 12 of which: “The Philippines made it clear that its position on the inclusion of North Borneo in the Federation of Malaysia is subject to the final outcome of the Philippine claim to North Borneo. The Ministers took note of the Philippine claim and the right of the Philippines to continue to pursue it in accordance with international law and the principle of the Pacific settlement of disputes. They agreed that the inclusion of North Borneo in the Federation of Malaysia would not prejudice either the claim or any right thereunder. Moreover, in the context of their close association, the three countries agreed to exert their best endeavors to bring the claim to a just and expeditious solution by peaceful means, such as negotiation, conciliation, arbitration, or judicial settlement as well as other peaceful means of the parties’ own choice, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations and the Bandung Declaration.” [https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1963/07/31/the-philippine-claim-to-a-portion-of-north-borneo-manila-accord/]
The President of the Republic of Indonesia, the President of the Philippines, and the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya had also met at a Summit Conference in Manila from July 30 to August 5, 1963. In the 21st century, the trio should unite as the core of the Southeast Asia Zone of Peace, Freedom, and Neutrality.
