Last year there were outbursts in the town halls. People claim that the outbursts were about health care & government, but questions arose. Are these outbursts racist? Where is all this coming from?
It has always been there, festering under the skin. Even people who didn’t realize they have it under their skin, until they feel threatened or provoked,then it bursted out.
The outbursts came from predominately white group. These outbursts were full of anger; a white anger.
These people would dismiss evidence that rebuke their exaggerated ridiculous claims. So it wasn’t about discussion & understanding, just anger. Although their argument & philosophy may have originated from an honest & valid place; its expression has developed to something ugly with a racial tinge to all this white anger. It’s like a heightened, irrational fear of the different & unknown.
A public option that is optional & use free market forces to lower prices for consumers has somehow became interpreted as a communist government takeover. Explicit reading of the bill of NOT covering illegal immigrants has become interpreted as covering illegal immigrants. For all those who say these outbursts & disruptions are patriotic. Wrong.
Protests are perfectly fine & essential to American freedom; but yelling fire in a public room causing disruption when there is no fire, is not a federally protected right & not patriotic. Just like that Republican congressman who yelled at President Obama disrupting the State of the Union last year.
Remember a couple of years ago Hugo Chavez of Venezuela came to the UN in NYC and called President Bush “the devil”. Who stood up for Bush?
Even though he disagrees with the President Bush on many issues, Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel stood up for President Bush & denounced “the devil” comment. Now that’s patriotism.
I do agree it’s not all about race. I do not consider most of these people who are angry as hard-core racists. But our American history is so intertwined with race, and we do have the most diverse country in the world; so you have to consider looking through a racial prism. Not all the time, just time to time.
Race is such a difficult discussion to have.
There are conflicting points of view.
The white community do not see themselves as a group but rather as individuals. They have worked hard to get where they are. Generally speaking, the white community are so tired talking about race, they feel that progress has been made & they are ready to move on.
People of color, especially those who experienced racism, view race as a continuous work-in-progress; in which progress has been made and I would hope that progress will continue. The perfect example of this is the election of our current President & white people start congratulating themselves saying it’s now a “post-racial” society with the election of 2008, while people of color still see a lot of work to be done.
I have seen this white anger before.
Being the non-negro, non-gringo, & non-latino in the room, I can offer a different perspective. I’ve always felt that I had to conform to white people & prove myself to black people. This white anger is not limited to the right-wing, I have seen this white anger on the left side also, probably not as often, but it was there.
When I was in college, I took a film class in 2000. The class took on many topics. One week the class discussed race. We had to read an article & watch a film about race. Then we had to post our thoughts on the class newsgroup, an electronic discussion forum on the computer. This is before the savvy internet we have today, so the newsgroup was DOS based. My class was predominately white. After I watched the movie & read the article I went on the computer to read my classmates’ posts. My class members’ posts were full of much anger. I can understand disagreeing with the article & film. But they dismiss the whole issue altogether with no further discussion & angry for bringing up the issue in the first place. I did not consider my fellow white classmates who posted these angry posts as racist. So I offered my perspective on my post. Here is an excerpt:
_________________________________________________________________________
The article we had to read was by Manthia Diawara “Black Spectatorship: Problems of Identification and Resistance”. The article was written in 1988 about the dominant white narrative in films, and funny enough, the essay focused on Eddie Murphy movies of the 80’s. The essay describes how film portrayals of African-Americans are ascribed as a lone, isolated black character domesticated into a white environment in movies. Since the essay was written in 1988, Murphy’s later films of the late 80’s & early 90’s are left out. So in the 2000, I made these tables in my post below to show the contrast between the 2 periods.
Before 1988
Film: 48 hrs (1982)
Character Role: Leaving prison to assist a white detective.
Film: Trading Places (1983)
Character Role: Street bum transfers to the white world of wallstreet.
Film: Beverly Hills Cop (1984)
Character Role: A street-wise urban detective from Detroit relocates to the extravagant, white, Beverly Hills.
1988 - 1995
Film: Coming to America (1988)
Character Role: A prince of a successful & prominent African country.
Film: Harlem Nights (1989)
Character Role: An influential gangster of Harlem.
Film: Vampire in Brooklyn (1995)
Character Role: A smooth West Indian Casanova vampire.
In Murphy’s earlier movies, he plays the lone portrayal of an African-American in a white setting. The latter films show more than one African-American character, showing more shades & differences within the black community. Also the stories are set in a black setting. Now, these movies are just entertaining pieces of comedic fiction. The dominant white narrative also exists in dramatic films that try to deal with real social problems.
Film: Colors (1988)
Subject: Gang violence in East L.A.Main Narrative: 2 white officers
Film: Time to Kill (1996)
Subject: Racism in the South.Main Narrative: 2 white lawyers
“Time to Kill” dealt with racism & the torment of the KKK. Historically, the Klan terrorized black people & Jewish people. However, in this film, the wrath of the Klan is portrayed from the perspective of 2 white, gentile lawyers. “Colors” was the 1st mainstream film that dealt with gang violence, yet it was through the eyes of 2 white cops. These 2 films are fictional accounts. Let’s examine the dominant white perspective with films based on historical fact.
Film: Geronimo (1988)
Subject: Land taken away from Apache Indians.Main Narrative: White lieutenant of US Army.
Film: 7 years in Tibet (1997)
Subject: Young Dali Lama.Main Narrative: White mountain climber. Character based on a person who was part of Nazi party.
Film: Cry Freedom (1987)
Subject: South Africa Apartheid.Main Narrative: White journalist.
Film: Mississippi Burning (1988)
Subject: Murder of 3 civil rights workers: 2 Blacks & 1 Jewish person.Main Narrative: 2 white gentile FBI agents.
Film: Glory (1989)
Subject: Civil War Black regiment.Main Narrative: White sergeant.
Film: Ghosts of Mississippi (1996)
Subject: Murder of civil rights leader, Medger Evers.Main Narrative: White lawyer.
Film: Amistad (1997)
Subject: Slavery.Main Narrative: 2 white lawyers.
Film: Windtalkers (1996)
Subject: World War II: Use of Navajo Native-American's language as US military code.Main Narrative: White marine.
The white dominant perspective exists on films about Black history, Native-American history, & even Tibetan history. Now does this trend really matter? I believe that these films are not intentionally racist; they are actually entertaining & educational.
However, if you consider the film “Braveheart”, its narrative is told from the perspective of the Scottish minority being oppressed by the British majority. Would it be the same film if the story were told from a sympathetic British duke?
Also, consider the film “Grapes of Wrath”, its narrative is told from the perspective of the “Oakies”, Oklahoma farmers surviving the Dust Bowl & migrating to California just to be manipulated by capitalists. Would it be the same film if the story were told from a sympathetic California landowner? Would either film be just as compelling? I do not think it would. With stories of oppression & bigotry, it is more effective when it is told from the perspective from the bottom where the pain & the struggle is the harshest.
End of excerpt.
_________________________________________________________________________
Backstory:
I was inspired to write this essay in my class way back when, after I saw a debate on Nightline (The one with Ted Koppel, not the crappy one they got now.) It was over the movie "Amistad" & Spike Lee was debating one of the producers of the film, Debbie Allen. When I start watching the news program, my initial reaction was "What is Spike complaining this time?" & "Why is he yelling at Debbie Allen? She's adorable, she's a dancer/ slash /actress & a movie producer."
But after hearing both arguments, I have to say, I was in agreement with Spike Lee.
So what I learned from the news, I wrote that essay for class.
Now the following day in class after my posting my thoughts on the DOS newsgroup, there was a much calmer tone in the air. I had no idea if anyone actually read my post at the time. Could it be that my post calmed my classmates’ anger down? Even the professor called on me in class to share what I wrote on the newsgroup to the rest of the class just in case other classmates didn’t get a chance to read it. Now this caught me by surprise. I didn’t understand why the professor would call on me to speak to the class. Because all the information I culminated for my newsgroup post was already out there. All I did was to remind everybody where everyone wants to be, a place of understanding & respect.
No comments:
Post a Comment