""Crash" is a white-supremacist movie." by Robert Jensen

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by JAS, Mar 25, 2006.

  1. JAS

    JAS Guest

    Hmmm. interesting view from Robert Jensen (a journalism professor at the
    University of Texas at Austin)



    "Crash" is a white-supremacist movie.

    The Oscar-winning best picture -- widely heralded, especially by white
    liberals, for advancing an honest discussion of race in the United States --
    is, in fact, a setback in the crucial project of forcing white America to
    come to terms the reality of race and racism, white supremacy and white
    privilege.

    The central theme of the film is simple: Everyone is prejudiced -- black,
    white, Asian, Iranian and, we assume, anyone from any other racial or ethnic
    group. We all carry around racial/ethnic baggage that's packed with unfair
    stereotypes, long-stewing grievances, raw anger, and crazy fears. Even when
    we think we have made progress, we find ourselves caught in frustratingly
    complex racial webs from which we can't seem to get untangled.

    For most people -- including the two of us -- that's painfully true; such
    untangling is a life's work in which we can make progress but never feel
    finished. But that can obscure a more fundamental and important point: This
    state of affairs is the product of the actions of us white people. In the
    modern world, white elites invented race and racism to protect their power,
    and white people in general have accepted the privileges they get from the
    system and helped maintain it. The problem doesn't spring from the
    individual prejudices that exist in various ways in all groups but from
    white supremacy, which is expressed not only by individuals but in systemic
    and institutional ways. There's little hint of such understanding in the
    film, which makes it especially dangerous in a white-dominant society in
    which white people are eager to avoid confronting our privilege.

    So, "Crash" is white supremacist because it minimizes the reality of white
    supremacy. Its faux humanism and simplistic message of tolerance directs
    attention away from a white-supremacist system and undermines white
    accountability for the maintenance of that system. We have no way of knowing
    whether this is the conscious intention of writer/director Paul Haggis, but
    it's emerges as the film's dominant message.

    While viewing "Crash" may make some people, especially white people,
    uncomfortable during and immediately after viewing, the film seems designed,
    at a deeper level, to make white people feel better. As the film asks us to
    confront personal prejudices, it allows us white folk to evade our
    collective responsibility for white supremacy. In "Crash," emotion trumps
    analysis, and psychology is more important than politics. The result: White
    people are off the hook.

    The first step in putting white people back on the hook is pressing the case
    that the United States in 2006 is a white-supremacist society. Even with the
    elimination of formal apartheid and the lessening of the worst of the overt
    racism of the past, the term is still appropriate, in ideological and
    material terms.

    The United States was founded, of course, on an ideology of the inherent
    superiority of white Europeans over non-whites that was used to justify the
    holocausts against indigenous people and Africans, which created the nation
    and propelled the U.S. economy into the industrial world. That ideology also
    has justified legal and extralegal exploitation of every non-white immigrant
    group.

    Today, polite white folks renounce such claims of superiority. But scratch
    below that surface politeness and the multicultural rhetoric of most white
    people, and one finds that the assumptions about the superiority of the art,
    music, culture, politics, and philosophy rooted in white Europe are still
    very much alive. No poll can document these kinds of covert opinions, but
    one hears it in the angry and defensive reaction of white America when
    non-white people dare to point out that whites have unearned privilege.
    Watch the resistance from white America when any serious attempt is made to
    modify school or college curricula to reflect knowledge from other areas and
    peoples. The ideology of white supremacy is all around.

    That ideology also helps white Americans ignore and/or rationalize the
    racialized disparities in the distribution of resources. Studies continue to
    demonstrate how, on average, whites are more likely than members of
    racial/ethnic minorities to be on top on measures of wealth and well-being.
    Looking specifically at the gap between white and black America, on some
    measures black Americans have fallen further behind white Americans during
    the so-called post-civil rights era. For example, the typical black family
    had 60 percent as much income as a white family in 1968, but only 58 percent
    as much in 2002. On those measures where there has been progress, closing
    the gap between black and white is decades, or centuries, away.

    What does this white supremacy mean in day-to-day life? One recent study
    found that in the United States, a black applicant with no criminal record
    is less likely to receive a callback from a potential employer than a white
    applicant with a felony conviction. In other words, being black is more of a
    liability in finding a job than being a convicted criminal. Into this new
    century, such discrimination has remained constant.

    That's white supremacy. Many people, of all races, feel and express
    prejudice, but white supremacy is built into the attitudes, practices and
    institutions of the dominant white society. It's not the product simply of
    individual failure but is woven into society, and the material consequences
    of it are dramatic.

    It seems that the people who made "Crash" either don't understand that,
    don't care, or both. The character in the film who comes closest to
    articulating a systemic analysis of white supremacy is Anthony, the
    carjacker played by the rapper Ludacris. But putting the critique in the
    mouth of such a morally unattractive character undermines any argument he
    makes, and his analysis is presented as pseudo-revolutionary blather to be
    brushed aside as we follow the filmmakers on the real subject of the film --
    the psychology of the prejudice that infects us all.

    That the characters in "Crash" -- white and non-white alike -- are complex
    and have a variety of flaws is not the problem; we don't want films
    populated by one-dimensional caricatures, simplistically drawn to make a
    political point. Those kinds of political films rarely help us understand
    our personal or political struggles. But this film's characters are drawn in
    ways that are ultimately reactionary.

    Although the film follows a number of story lines, its politics are most
    clearly revealed in the interaction that two black women have with an openly
    racist white Los Angeles police officer played by Matt Dillon. During a
    bogus traffic stop, Dillon's Officer Ryan sexually violates Christine, the
    upper-middle-class black woman played by Thandie Newton. But when fate later
    puts Ryan at the scene of an accident where Christine's life is in danger,
    he risks his own life to save her, even when she at first reacts
    hysterically and rejects his help. The white male is redeemed by his
    heroism. The black woman, reduced to incoherence by the trauma of the
    accident, can only be silently grateful for his transcendence.

    Even more important to the film's message is Ryan's verbal abuse of
    Shaniqua, a black case manager at an insurance company (played by Loretta
    Devine). She bears Ryan's racism with dignity as he dumps his frustration
    with the insurance company's rules about care of his father onto her, in the
    form of an angry and ignorant rant against affirmative action. She is
    empathetic with Ryan's struggle but unwilling to accept his abuse, appearing
    to be one of the few reasonable characters in the film. But not for long.

    In a key moment at the end of the film, Shaniqua is rear-ended at a traffic
    light and emerges from her car angry at the Asian driver who has hit her.
    "Don't talk to me unless you speak American," she shouts at the driver. As
    the camera pulls back, we are left to imagine the language she uses in
    venting her prejudice.

    In stark contrast to Ryan and his racism is his police partner at the
    beginning of the film, Hanson (played by Ryan Phillippe). Younger and
    idealistic, Hanson tries to get Ryan to back off from the encounter with
    Christine and then reports Ryan's racist behavior to his black lieutenant,
    Dixon (played by Keith David). Dixon doesn't want the hassles of initiating
    a disciplinary action and Hanson is left to cope on his own, but he
    continues to try to do the right thing throughout the movie. Though he's the
    white character most committed to racial justice, at the end of the film
    Hanson's fear overcomes judgment in a tense moment, and he shoots and kills
    a black man. It's certainly true that well-intentioned white people can
    harbor such fears rooted in racist training. But in the world "Crash"
    creates, Hanson's deeper awareness of the nature of racism and attempts to
    combat it are irrelevant, while Ryan somehow magically overcomes his racism.

    Let us be clear: "Crash" is not a racist movie, in the sense of crudely
    using overtly racist stereotypes. It certainly doesn't present the white
    characters as uniformly good; most are clueless or corrupt. Two of the
    non-white characters (a Latino locksmith and an Iranian doctor) are the most
    virtuous in the film. The characters and plot lines are complex and often
    intriguing. But "Crash" remains a white-supremacist movie because of what it
    refuses to bring into the discussion.

    At this point in our critique, defenders of the film have suggested to us
    that we expect too much, that movies tend to deal with issues at this
    personalized level and we can't expect more. This is evasion. For example,
    whatever one thinks of its politics, another recent film, "Syriana,"
    presents a complex institutional analysis of U.S. foreign policy in an
    engaging fashion. It's possible to produce a film that is politically
    sophisticated and commercially viable. Haggis is clearly talented, and
    there's no reason to think he couldn't have deepened the analysis in
    creative ways.

    "Crash" fans also have offered this defense to us: In a culture that seems
    terrified of any open discussion of race, isn't some attempt at an honest
    treatment of the complexity of the issue better than nothing? That's a
    classic argument from false alternatives. Are we stuck with a choice between
    silence or bad analysis? Beyond that, in this case the answer may well be
    no. If "Crash" and similar efforts that personalize and psychologize the
    issue of race keep white America from an honest engagement with the
    structure and consequences of white supremacy, the ultimate effect may be
    reactionary. In that case, "nothing" may be better.

    The problem of "Crash" can be summed up through one phrase from the studio's
    promotional material, which asserts that the film "boldly reminds us of the
    importance of tolerance."

    That's exactly the problem. On the surface, the film appears to be bold,
    speaking of race with the kind of raw emotion that is rare in this culture.
    But that emotion turns out, in the end, to be manipulative and diversionary.
    The problem is that the film can't move beyond the concept of tolerance, and
    tolerance is not the solution to America's race problem. White people can --
    and often do -- learn to tolerate difference without ever disturbing the
    systemic, institutional nature of racism.

    The core problem is not intolerance but white supremacy -- and the way in
    which, day in and day out, white people accept white supremacy and the
    unearned privileges it brings.

    "Crash" paints a multi-colored picture of race, and in a multi-racial
    society recognizing that diversity is important. Let's just not forget that
    the color of racism is white.



    Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin
    and the author of The Heart of Whiteness: Confronting Race, Racism and White
    Privilege. He can be reached at . Robert Wosnitzer
    is associate producer of the forthcoming documentary on pornography "The
    Price of Pleasure." He can be reached at .
     
    JAS, Mar 25, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. JAS

    RodneyK Guest

    JAS wrote:
    > Hmmm. interesting view from Robert Jensen (a journalism professor at the
    > University of Texas at Austin)
    >
    >
    >
    > "Crash" is a white-supremacist movie.
    >
    > The Oscar-winning best picture -- widely heralded, especially by white
    > liberals, for advancing an honest discussion of race in the United States --
    > is, in fact, a setback in the crucial project of forcing white America to
    > come to terms the reality of race and racism, white supremacy and white
    > privilege.
    >
    > The central theme of the film is simple: Everyone is prejudiced -- black,
    > white, Asian, Iranian and, we assume, anyone from any other racial or ethnic
    > group. We all carry around racial/ethnic baggage that's packed with unfair
    > stereotypes, long-stewing grievances, raw anger, and crazy fears. Even when
    > we think we have made progress, we find ourselves caught in frustratingly
    > complex racial webs from which we can't seem to get untangled.
    >
    > For most people -- including the two of us -- that's painfully true; such
    > untangling is a life's work in which we can make progress but never feel
    > finished. But that can obscure a more fundamental and important point: This
    > state of affairs is the product of the actions of us white people. In the
    > modern world, white elites invented race and racism to protect their power,
    > and white people in general have accepted the privileges they get from the
    > system and helped maintain it. The problem doesn't spring from the
    > individual prejudices that exist in various ways in all groups but from
    > white supremacy, which is expressed not only by individuals but in systemic
    > and institutional ways. There's little hint of such understanding in the
    > film, which makes it especially dangerous in a white-dominant society in
    > which white people are eager to avoid confronting our privilege.
    >
    > So, "Crash" is white supremacist because it minimizes the reality of white
    > supremacy. Its faux humanism and simplistic message of tolerance directs
    > attention away from a white-supremacist system and undermines white
    > accountability for the maintenance of that system. We have no way of knowing
    > whether this is the conscious intention of writer/director Paul Haggis, but
    > it's emerges as the film's dominant message.
    >
    > While viewing "Crash" may make some people, especially white people,
    > uncomfortable during and immediately after viewing, the film seems designed,
    > at a deeper level, to make white people feel better. As the film asks us to
    > confront personal prejudices, it allows us white folk to evade our
    > collective responsibility for white supremacy. In "Crash," emotion trumps
    > analysis, and psychology is more important than politics. The result: White
    > people are off the hook.
    >
    > The first step in putting white people back on the hook is pressing the case
    > that the United States in 2006 is a white-supremacist society. Even with the
    > elimination of formal apartheid and the lessening of the worst of the overt
    > racism of the past, the term is still appropriate, in ideological and
    > material terms.
    >
    > The United States was founded, of course, on an ideology of the inherent
    > superiority of white Europeans over non-whites that was used to justify the
    > holocausts against indigenous people and Africans, which created the nation
    > and propelled the U.S. economy into the industrial world. That ideology also
    > has justified legal and extralegal exploitation of every non-white immigrant
    > group.
    >
    > Today, polite white folks renounce such claims of superiority. But scratch
    > below that surface politeness and the multicultural rhetoric of most white
    > people, and one finds that the assumptions about the superiority of the art,
    > music, culture, politics, and philosophy rooted in white Europe are still
    > very much alive. No poll can document these kinds of covert opinions, but
    > one hears it in the angry and defensive reaction of white America when
    > non-white people dare to point out that whites have unearned privilege.
    > Watch the resistance from white America when any serious attempt is made to
    > modify school or college curricula to reflect knowledge from other areas and
    > peoples. The ideology of white supremacy is all around.
    >
    > That ideology also helps white Americans ignore and/or rationalize the
    > racialized disparities in the distribution of resources. Studies continue to
    > demonstrate how, on average, whites are more likely than members of
    > racial/ethnic minorities to be on top on measures of wealth and well-being.
    > Looking specifically at the gap between white and black America, on some
    > measures black Americans have fallen further behind white Americans during
    > the so-called post-civil rights era. For example, the typical black family
    > had 60 percent as much income as a white family in 1968, but only 58 percent
    > as much in 2002. On those measures where there has been progress, closing
    > the gap between black and white is decades, or centuries, away.
    >
    > What does this white supremacy mean in day-to-day life? One recent study
    > found that in the United States, a black applicant with no criminal record
    > is less likely to receive a callback from a potential employer than a white
    > applicant with a felony conviction. In other words, being black is more of a
    > liability in finding a job than being a convicted criminal. Into this new
    > century, such discrimination has remained constant.
    >
    > That's white supremacy. Many people, of all races, feel and express
    > prejudice, but white supremacy is built into the attitudes, practices and
    > institutions of the dominant white society. It's not the product simply of
    > individual failure but is woven into society, and the material consequences
    > of it are dramatic.
    >
    > It seems that the people who made "Crash" either don't understand that,
    > don't care, or both. The character in the film who comes closest to
    > articulating a systemic analysis of white supremacy is Anthony, the
    > carjacker played by the rapper Ludacris. But putting the critique in the
    > mouth of such a morally unattractive character undermines any argument he
    > makes, and his analysis is presented as pseudo-revolutionary blather to be
    > brushed aside as we follow the filmmakers on the real subject of the film --
    > the psychology of the prejudice that infects us all.
    >
    > That the characters in "Crash" -- white and non-white alike -- are complex
    > and have a variety of flaws is not the problem; we don't want films
    > populated by one-dimensional caricatures, simplistically drawn to make a
    > political point. Those kinds of political films rarely help us understand
    > our personal or political struggles. But this film's characters are drawn in
    > ways that are ultimately reactionary.
    >
    > Although the film follows a number of story lines, its politics are most
    > clearly revealed in the interaction that two black women have with an openly
    > racist white Los Angeles police officer played by Matt Dillon. During a
    > bogus traffic stop, Dillon's Officer Ryan sexually violates Christine, the
    > upper-middle-class black woman played by Thandie Newton. But when fate later
    > puts Ryan at the scene of an accident where Christine's life is in danger,
    > he risks his own life to save her, even when she at first reacts
    > hysterically and rejects his help. The white male is redeemed by his
    > heroism. The black woman, reduced to incoherence by the trauma of the
    > accident, can only be silently grateful for his transcendence.
    >
    > Even more important to the film's message is Ryan's verbal abuse of
    > Shaniqua, a black case manager at an insurance company (played by Loretta
    > Devine). She bears Ryan's racism with dignity as he dumps his frustration
    > with the insurance company's rules about care of his father onto her, in the
    > form of an angry and ignorant rant against affirmative action. She is
    > empathetic with Ryan's struggle but unwilling to accept his abuse, appearing
    > to be one of the few reasonable characters in the film. But not for long.
    >
    > In a key moment at the end of the film, Shaniqua is rear-ended at a traffic
    > light and emerges from her car angry at the Asian driver who has hit her.
    > "Don't talk to me unless you speak American," she shouts at the driver. As
    > the camera pulls back, we are left to imagine the language she uses in
    > venting her prejudice.
    >
    > In stark contrast to Ryan and his racism is his police partner at the
    > beginning of the film, Hanson (played by Ryan Phillippe). Younger and
    > idealistic, Hanson tries to get Ryan to back off from the encounter with
    > Christine and then reports Ryan's racist behavior to his black lieutenant,
    > Dixon (played by Keith David). Dixon doesn't want the hassles of initiating
    > a disciplinary action and Hanson is left to cope on his own, but he
    > continues to try to do the right thing throughout the movie. Though he's the
    > white character most committed to racial justice, at the end of the film
    > Hanson's fear overcomes judgment in a tense moment, and he shoots and kills
    > a black man. It's certainly true that well-intentioned white people can
    > harbor such fears rooted in racist training. But in the world "Crash"
    > creates, Hanson's deeper awareness of the nature of racism and attempts to
    > combat it are irrelevant, while Ryan somehow magically overcomes his racism.
    >
    > Let us be clear: "Crash" is not a racist movie, in the sense of crudely
    > using overtly racist stereotypes. It certainly doesn't present the white
    > characters as uniformly good; most are clueless or corrupt. Two of the
    > non-white characters (a Latino locksmith and an Iranian doctor) are the most
    > virtuous in the film. The characters and plot lines are complex and often
    > intriguing. But "Crash" remains a white-supremacist movie because of what it
    > refuses to bring into the discussion.
    >
    > At this point in our critique, defenders of the film have suggested to us
    > that we expect too much, that movies tend to deal with issues at this
    > personalized level and we can't expect more. This is evasion. For example,
    > whatever one thinks of its politics, another recent film, "Syriana,"
    > presents a complex institutional analysis of U.S. foreign policy in an
    > engaging fashion. It's possible to produce a film that is politically
    > sophisticated and commercially viable. Haggis is clearly talented, and
    > there's no reason to think he couldn't have deepened the analysis in
    > creative ways.
    >
    > "Crash" fans also have offered this defense to us: In a culture that seems
    > terrified of any open discussion of race, isn't some attempt at an honest
    > treatment of the complexity of the issue better than nothing? That's a
    > classic argument from false alternatives. Are we stuck with a choice between
    > silence or bad analysis? Beyond that, in this case the answer may well be
    > no. If "Crash" and similar efforts that personalize and psychologize the
    > issue of race keep white America from an honest engagement with the
    > structure and consequences of white supremacy, the ultimate effect may be
    > reactionary. In that case, "nothing" may be better.
    >
    > The problem of "Crash" can be summed up through one phrase from the studio's
    > promotional material, which asserts that the film "boldly reminds us of the
    > importance of tolerance."
    >
    > That's exactly the problem. On the surface, the film appears to be bold,
    > speaking of race with the kind of raw emotion that is rare in this culture.
    > But that emotion turns out, in the end, to be manipulative and diversionary.
    > The problem is that the film can't move beyond the concept of tolerance, and
    > tolerance is not the solution to America's race problem. White people can --
    > and often do -- learn to tolerate difference without ever disturbing the
    > systemic, institutional nature of racism.
    >
    > The core problem is not intolerance but white supremacy -- and the way in
    > which, day in and day out, white people accept white supremacy and the
    > unearned privileges it brings.
    >
    > "Crash" paints a multi-colored picture of race, and in a multi-racial
    > society recognizing that diversity is important. Let's just not forget that
    > the color of racism is white.
    >
    >
    >
    > Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin
    > and the author of The Heart of Whiteness: Confronting Race, Racism and White
    > Privilege. He can be reached at . Robert Wosnitzer
    > is associate producer of the forthcoming documentary on pornography "The
    > Price of Pleasure." He can be reached at .
    >



    The problem with moralizing about race and racial supremacy is one of
    degree. If the author's message became mainstream and e.g. there was a
    concerted political push over several centuries to destroy the 'white
    supremacist society' then who is to say that it wont stop there. Who is
    to say that an even more radical message is not adopted, until all the
    sins of the 'white supremacist society' have been purged.
    To describe the resultant society would be to rewrite the history of
    slavery with blacks as masters and whites as slaves.

    I'm afraid we will have to accept at some stage that even 'wronged'
    coloured people can sin or be judged to be sociopathic.

    RodneyK
    Enjoy
     
    RodneyK, Mar 27, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. JAS

    JAS Guest

    "RodneyK" <"(RodneyK)RodneyKShanley"@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:zNMVf.17588$...
    > JAS wrote:
    >> Hmmm. interesting view from Robert Jensen (a journalism professor at the
    >> University of Texas at Austin)
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> "Crash" is a white-supremacist movie.
    >>
    >> The Oscar-winning best picture -- widely heralded, especially by white
    >> liberals, for advancing an honest discussion of race in the United
    >> States -- is, in fact, a setback in the crucial project of forcing white
    >> America to come to terms the reality of race and racism, white supremacy
    >> and white privilege.
    >>
    >> The central theme of the film is simple: Everyone is prejudiced -- black,
    >> white, Asian, Iranian and, we assume, anyone from any other racial or
    >> ethnic group. We all carry around racial/ethnic baggage that's packed
    >> with unfair stereotypes, long-stewing grievances, raw anger, and crazy
    >> fears. Even when we think we have made progress, we find ourselves caught
    >> in frustratingly complex racial webs from which we can't seem to get
    >> untangled.
    >>
    >> For most people -- including the two of us -- that's painfully true; such
    >> untangling is a life's work in which we can make progress but never feel
    >> finished. But that can obscure a more fundamental and important point:
    >> This state of affairs is the product of the actions of us white people.
    >> In the modern world, white elites invented race and racism to protect
    >> their power, and white people in general have accepted the privileges
    >> they get from the system and helped maintain it. The problem doesn't
    >> spring from the individual prejudices that exist in various ways in all
    >> groups but from white supremacy, which is expressed not only by
    >> individuals but in systemic and institutional ways. There's little hint
    >> of such understanding in the film, which makes it especially dangerous in
    >> a white-dominant society in which white people are eager to avoid
    >> confronting our privilege.
    >>
    >> So, "Crash" is white supremacist because it minimizes the reality of
    >> white supremacy. Its faux humanism and simplistic message of tolerance
    >> directs attention away from a white-supremacist system and undermines
    >> white accountability for the maintenance of that system. We have no way
    >> of knowing whether this is the conscious intention of writer/director
    >> Paul Haggis, but it's emerges as the film's dominant message.
    >>
    >> While viewing "Crash" may make some people, especially white people,
    >> uncomfortable during and immediately after viewing, the film seems
    >> designed, at a deeper level, to make white people feel better. As the
    >> film asks us to confront personal prejudices, it allows us white folk to
    >> evade our collective responsibility for white supremacy. In "Crash,"
    >> emotion trumps analysis, and psychology is more important than politics.
    >> The result: White people are off the hook.
    >>
    >> The first step in putting white people back on the hook is pressing the
    >> case that the United States in 2006 is a white-supremacist society. Even
    >> with the elimination of formal apartheid and the lessening of the worst
    >> of the overt racism of the past, the term is still appropriate, in
    >> ideological and material terms.
    >>
    >> The United States was founded, of course, on an ideology of the inherent
    >> superiority of white Europeans over non-whites that was used to justify
    >> the holocausts against indigenous people and Africans, which created the
    >> nation and propelled the U.S. economy into the industrial world. That
    >> ideology also has justified legal and extralegal exploitation of every
    >> non-white immigrant group.
    >>
    >> Today, polite white folks renounce such claims of superiority. But
    >> scratch below that surface politeness and the multicultural rhetoric of
    >> most white people, and one finds that the assumptions about the
    >> superiority of the art, music, culture, politics, and philosophy rooted
    >> in white Europe are still very much alive. No poll can document these
    >> kinds of covert opinions, but one hears it in the angry and defensive
    >> reaction of white America when non-white people dare to point out that
    >> whites have unearned privilege. Watch the resistance from white America
    >> when any serious attempt is made to modify school or college curricula to
    >> reflect knowledge from other areas and peoples. The ideology of white
    >> supremacy is all around.
    >>
    >> That ideology also helps white Americans ignore and/or rationalize the
    >> racialized disparities in the distribution of resources. Studies continue
    >> to demonstrate how, on average, whites are more likely than members of
    >> racial/ethnic minorities to be on top on measures of wealth and
    >> well-being. Looking specifically at the gap between white and black
    >> America, on some measures black Americans have fallen further behind
    >> white Americans during the so-called post-civil rights era. For example,
    >> the typical black family had 60 percent as much income as a white family
    >> in 1968, but only 58 percent as much in 2002. On those measures where
    >> there has been progress, closing the gap between black and white is
    >> decades, or centuries, away.
    >>
    >> What does this white supremacy mean in day-to-day life? One recent study
    >> found that in the United States, a black applicant with no criminal
    >> record is less likely to receive a callback from a potential employer
    >> than a white applicant with a felony conviction. In other words, being
    >> black is more of a liability in finding a job than being a convicted
    >> criminal. Into this new century, such discrimination has remained
    >> constant.
    >>
    >> That's white supremacy. Many people, of all races, feel and express
    >> prejudice, but white supremacy is built into the attitudes, practices and
    >> institutions of the dominant white society. It's not the product simply
    >> of individual failure but is woven into society, and the material
    >> consequences of it are dramatic.
    >>
    >> It seems that the people who made "Crash" either don't understand that,
    >> don't care, or both. The character in the film who comes closest to
    >> articulating a systemic analysis of white supremacy is Anthony, the
    >> carjacker played by the rapper Ludacris. But putting the critique in the
    >> mouth of such a morally unattractive character undermines any argument he
    >> makes, and his analysis is presented as pseudo-revolutionary blather to
    >> be brushed aside as we follow the filmmakers on the real subject of the
    >> film -- the psychology of the prejudice that infects us all.
    >>
    >> That the characters in "Crash" -- white and non-white alike -- are
    >> complex and have a variety of flaws is not the problem; we don't want
    >> films populated by one-dimensional caricatures, simplistically drawn to
    >> make a political point. Those kinds of political films rarely help us
    >> understand our personal or political struggles. But this film's
    >> characters are drawn in ways that are ultimately reactionary.
    >>
    >> Although the film follows a number of story lines, its politics are most
    >> clearly revealed in the interaction that two black women have with an
    >> openly racist white Los Angeles police officer played by Matt Dillon.
    >> During a bogus traffic stop, Dillon's Officer Ryan sexually violates
    >> Christine, the upper-middle-class black woman played by Thandie Newton.
    >> But when fate later puts Ryan at the scene of an accident where
    >> Christine's life is in danger, he risks his own life to save her, even
    >> when she at first reacts hysterically and rejects his help. The white
    >> male is redeemed by his heroism. The black woman, reduced to incoherence
    >> by the trauma of the accident, can only be silently grateful for his
    >> transcendence.
    >>
    >> Even more important to the film's message is Ryan's verbal abuse of
    >> Shaniqua, a black case manager at an insurance company (played by Loretta
    >> Devine). She bears Ryan's racism with dignity as he dumps his frustration
    >> with the insurance company's rules about care of his father onto her, in
    >> the form of an angry and ignorant rant against affirmative action. She is
    >> empathetic with Ryan's struggle but unwilling to accept his abuse,
    >> appearing to be one of the few reasonable characters in the film. But not
    >> for long.
    >>
    >> In a key moment at the end of the film, Shaniqua is rear-ended at a
    >> traffic light and emerges from her car angry at the Asian driver who has
    >> hit her. "Don't talk to me unless you speak American," she shouts at the
    >> driver. As the camera pulls back, we are left to imagine the language she
    >> uses in venting her prejudice.
    >>
    >> In stark contrast to Ryan and his racism is his police partner at the
    >> beginning of the film, Hanson (played by Ryan Phillippe). Younger and
    >> idealistic, Hanson tries to get Ryan to back off from the encounter with
    >> Christine and then reports Ryan's racist behavior to his black
    >> lieutenant, Dixon (played by Keith David). Dixon doesn't want the hassles
    >> of initiating a disciplinary action and Hanson is left to cope on his
    >> own, but he continues to try to do the right thing throughout the movie.
    >> Though he's the white character most committed to racial justice, at the
    >> end of the film Hanson's fear overcomes judgment in a tense moment, and
    >> he shoots and kills a black man. It's certainly true that
    >> well-intentioned white people can harbor such fears rooted in racist
    >> training. But in the world "Crash" creates, Hanson's deeper awareness of
    >> the nature of racism and attempts to combat it are irrelevant, while Ryan
    >> somehow magically overcomes his racism.
    >>
    >> Let us be clear: "Crash" is not a racist movie, in the sense of crudely
    >> using overtly racist stereotypes. It certainly doesn't present the white
    >> characters as uniformly good; most are clueless or corrupt. Two of the
    >> non-white characters (a Latino locksmith and an Iranian doctor) are the
    >> most virtuous in the film. The characters and plot lines are complex and
    >> often intriguing. But "Crash" remains a white-supremacist movie because
    >> of what it refuses to bring into the discussion.
    >>
    >> At this point in our critique, defenders of the film have suggested to us
    >> that we expect too much, that movies tend to deal with issues at this
    >> personalized level and we can't expect more. This is evasion. For
    >> example, whatever one thinks of its politics, another recent film,
    >> "Syriana," presents a complex institutional analysis of U.S. foreign
    >> policy in an engaging fashion. It's possible to produce a film that is
    >> politically sophisticated and commercially viable. Haggis is clearly
    >> talented, and there's no reason to think he couldn't have deepened the
    >> analysis in creative ways.
    >>
    >> "Crash" fans also have offered this defense to us: In a culture that
    >> seems terrified of any open discussion of race, isn't some attempt at an
    >> honest treatment of the complexity of the issue better than nothing?
    >> That's a classic argument from false alternatives. Are we stuck with a
    >> choice between silence or bad analysis? Beyond that, in this case the
    >> answer may well be no. If "Crash" and similar efforts that personalize
    >> and psychologize the issue of race keep white America from an honest
    >> engagement with the structure and consequences of white supremacy, the
    >> ultimate effect may be reactionary. In that case, "nothing" may be
    >> better.
    >>
    >> The problem of "Crash" can be summed up through one phrase from the
    >> studio's promotional material, which asserts that the film "boldly
    >> reminds us of the importance of tolerance."
    >>
    >> That's exactly the problem. On the surface, the film appears to be bold,
    >> speaking of race with the kind of raw emotion that is rare in this
    >> culture. But that emotion turns out, in the end, to be manipulative and
    >> diversionary. The problem is that the film can't move beyond the concept
    >> of tolerance, and tolerance is not the solution to America's race
    >> problem. White people can -- and often do -- learn to tolerate
    >> difference without ever disturbing the systemic, institutional nature of
    >> racism.
    >>
    >> The core problem is not intolerance but white supremacy -- and the way in
    >> which, day in and day out, white people accept white supremacy and the
    >> unearned privileges it brings.
    >>
    >> "Crash" paints a multi-colored picture of race, and in a multi-racial
    >> society recognizing that diversity is important. Let's just not forget
    >> that the color of racism is white.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at
    >> Austin and the author of The Heart of Whiteness: Confronting Race, Racism
    >> and White Privilege. He can be reached at .
    >> Robert Wosnitzer is associate producer of the forthcoming documentary on
    >> pornography "The Price of Pleasure." He can be reached at
    >> .
    >>

    >
    >
    > The problem with moralizing about race and racial supremacy is one of
    > degree. If the author's message became mainstream and e.g. there was a
    > concerted political push over several centuries to destroy the 'white
    > supremacist society' then who is to say that it wont stop there. Who is to
    > say that an even more radical message is not adopted, until all the sins
    > of the 'white supremacist society' have been purged.
    > To describe the resultant society would be to rewrite the history of
    > slavery with blacks as masters and whites as slaves.
    >
    > I'm afraid we will have to accept at some stage that even 'wronged'
    > coloured people can sin or be judged to be sociopathic.
    >
    > RodneyK
    > Enjoy



    I liked the move myself in that it brilliantly focused on irrational anger
    (with prejudice/differences as a frequent catalyst) that caused social
    conflict.
     
    JAS, May 7, 2006
    #3
  4. JAS

    Roy L. Fuchs Guest

    On Sun, 7 May 2006 11:16:28 +1200, "JAS" <> Gave us:

    >I liked the move myself in that it brilliantly focused on irrational anger
    >(with prejudice/differences as a frequent catalyst) that caused social
    >conflict.


    Absolutely correct and proper description.
     
    Roy L. Fuchs, May 7, 2006
    #4
  5. JAS

    John Guest

    I'm from Texas and I can tell you that UT Austin is trying to replace UC
    Berkley as the number one liberal, Socialist, and anti-America State-Owned
    and operated University in America.
     
    John, May 25, 2006
    #5
  6. JAS

    Justin Guest

    John wrote on [Thu, 25 May 2006 19:23:21 GMT]:
    > I'm from Texas and I can tell you that UT Austin is trying to replace UC
    > Berkley as the number one liberal, Socialist, and anti-America State-Owned
    > and operated University in America.


    Since when does liberal mean anti-america? Oh yeah, it doesn't. Neither
    do socialist values.
     
    Justin, May 25, 2006
    #6
  7. "Justin" <> wrote in message
    news:2go.com...
    > John wrote on [Thu, 25 May 2006 19:23:21 GMT]:
    >> I'm from Texas and I can tell you that UT Austin is trying to replace UC
    >> Berkley as the number one liberal, Socialist, and anti-America
    >> State-Owned
    >> and operated University in America.

    >
    > Since when does liberal mean anti-america? Oh yeah, it doesn't. Neither
    > do socialist values.


    Since Ronald Reagan got to be president and Rush Limbaugh started
    regurgitating in on the airwaves. So it's been a while. Of course, it
    doesn't actually mean that, but enough people have fallen for the propaganda
    that they don't know any better.
     
    Incremental Jones, May 26, 2006
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Real Estate Tools
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,102
    Real Estate Tools
    Jan 2, 2004
  2. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,051
    Boomer
    Jan 5, 2004
  3. k-dog
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    432
    k-dog
    Jun 21, 2004
  4. glasya-labolas

    Jensen JR400 remote codes

    glasya-labolas, Sep 18, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    6,282
    glasya-labolas
    Sep 18, 2003
  5. Karlsen

    Program for securing Jensen 64mb USB drive

    Karlsen, Oct 4, 2003, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    376
    Karlsen
    Oct 4, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page