Am I the only one having trouble buying what this guy is selling? "Crash" has a flawed analysis of racism? Maybe. It minimizes white racism? Could be. But, white supremacist???? That is going overboard rhetorically.
How do you get from saying that non-whites are sometimes bigoted, to being a white supremacist? You may disagree with both positions, or think they're wrong, or bad, but the two positions are not identical. A professor of all people ought to know that. I bet Don Cheadle and the other fine actors in this movie would be surprised to find they acted in a white-supremacist movie. I bet Oprah Winfrey would be shocked to learn she endorsed white supremacism. A white supremacist is a guy in suspenders, boots and Nazi regalia. Or, you could stretch a point and say that a white supremacist is someone who redlines poor neighborhoods, fights affirmative action, abolishes bilingual education and editorializes against Black History Month. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the moviemakers did anything like that. I think Jensen is just miffed that they didn't make the movie the way he would have liked it made. No wonder nobody takes the Left seriously anymore. Thanks a lot, Professor Jensen. > ZNet Commentary > Crash March 24, 2006 > By Robert Jensen and Robert Wosnitzer > > "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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Robert Wosnitzer > is associate producer of the forthcoming documentary on pornography "The > Price of Pleasure." He can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
