-----Original Message-----
From: laamn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:laamn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf
Of
Carl Gunther
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 12:51 AM
To: Ed
Pearl
Cc: ooa@xxxxxxx; LAAMN; peacecenter; Actionla
Subject: [LAAMN] Re:
Is "Crash" is a white-supremacist movie?
Below is a recent letter to
L.A. Times columnist Steve Lopez (who
wrote about Crash in mid-March)
expressing my own opinion regarding
the movie. There is a striking
level of agreement between the major
points of the ZNet article and those of
my own letter.
One thing that did not occur to me, but that did occur to
the authors
of the article, is that the movie is white supremacist. I
had
evaluated it as a diversion from the more fundamental issue
of
institutional racism, but not as white supremacist itself.
On
that point the article's analysis is deeper and more correct than
was my
own. Because in a society in which whites dominate, ***anything
that creates a systematic diversion from the
institutions through
which that domination is propagated promotes the status
quo, and
hence defends and supports white supremacy.
The character of
racism today is no longer that of the old South.
Rather, it is one of
redlining, job discrimination, hypocritical
immigration laws, de facto
segregation through economics and housing
discrimination, separate and
unequal education, police repression,
selective law enforcement and massive
imprisonment.
This more quiet, careful and systematic repression
doesn't look,
sound or smell like Bull Connor, but it is *the* main way
in which
racism exists and is propagated today. Anything that takes the
heat
off the institutions and tries to convince us that the real
problem
is a bunch of racist individuals venting their spleen is
indeed
giving aid and comfort to that system, and so is indeed
supporting
white supremacy.
Remember how the "Don't Be a Litterbug"
campaign was created by the
Ad Council, which in turn was led by the Public
Relations director of
Union Carbide? I'm not suggesting that Crash was
a deliberate effort
of that kind, but the pattern of focusing blame upon
individual vice
and away from the institutions that are the main cause of the
problem
is the same, deliberate or not.
As for the "left" lacking
credibility, it depends upon which left you
are talking about. If you
mean the immigrant-led movement that
brought a million people onto the
streets of Los Angeles last
Saturday, then I would have to
disagree.
Carl
------
From: Carl Gunther
<cgunther@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: steve.lopez@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Crash
Ignores Institutional Racism
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 11:33:29 -0800
The
fallacy of Crash is its underlying premise that racism is
motivated primarily
by individual bias, and expressed primarily
through personal
encounters.
As you have pointed out, many people in Los Angeles get along
quite
well at an individual level. But both the film, and your
present
discussion of it, seem to have reduced the debate over racism to
the
question of whether Angelenos, as individuals, are able to
tolerate
one another in their everyday encounters.
A real examination
of the question of racism would take us into
California's overcrowded prisons
and jails, in which people of color
are overwhelmingly over-represented, and
into corporate America, in
which African-Americans in particular are
overwhelmingly under-
represented. It would take us into South
Central's school system,
with its paucity of resources and abundance of
non-white children,
and into Beverly Hills High, with its abundance of
resources and
paucity of children of color. It would examine how class
and race as
categories have come to be so strongly related in America, and
how
disease rates and life expectancies are correlated with the color of
a
person's skin. It would look at the concentration of toxic
industries
in communities of color, such as Wilmington, CA, with its
enormous collection
of oil refineries, and the resulting death and
disease that has proliferated
in those communities.
It would examine politicians who build their
careers on crypto-racist
attacks upon Mexican and Central American
immigrants, and the
diabolical businesses that support them in order to
maintain a state
of terror among their own laborers, who they know will
continue to
cross the border, whatever the risk to their lives.
As you
say, you have dealt with issues such as these in previous
columns. But
that perspective is almost entirely missing in your
discussion of this
film.
You may think that your complaints about Crash are defending
Los
Angeles from an unjustified attack, but by accepting its false
premise
of racism as a purely personal _expression_, you are creating a
diversionary
debate that can only delay Los Angeles in understanding
and addressing its
disastrous, and completely self-evident,
institutional racism.
Carl
Gunther
Organization:
http://officeoftheamericas.org
To:
activism
<activism@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Copies to:
Ed Pearl
<epearlag@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, LAAMN
<laamn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
peacecenter
<peacecenter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Actionla
<actionla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From:
Blase Bonpane
<ooa@xxxxxxx>
Date sent:
Thu, 30 Mar 2006 13:28:04
-0800
Subject:
Re: [LAAMN] Is "Crash" is a
white-supremacist movie? Uh, no.
[ Double-click this line for list
subscription options ]
I agree, Ed.
And this is not the first time
I have found
his material way off base.
Thanks for this and for all of
your great missives,
Blase
activism wrote:
> 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
>>rjensen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Robert Wosnitzer is associate
producer of
>>the forthcoming documentary on pornography "The Price of
Pleasure."
>>He can be reached at
robert.wosnitzer@xxxxxxx
-
| Cause | Issues | Pacifica |
| Culture | Participant | Forging |