American Politics & Pop Culture

As Couvares (1992) articulates, “determining what is legitimate to say and hear and see… is a central activity of all societies and social groups� (521). The MPAA has managed to create a corrupt system in which raters are “secret,� unaccountable for their decisions, and highly influenced by those with financial interests. The huge discrepancies between ratings from movie to movie are a result of 1) this lack of accountability and lack of any formal criteria and 2) the “wider cultural and political tensions� with which censorship is primarily concerned (Couvares, 1992).
A prime example is this nation’s societal tension around homosexuality. Religious dogma has shaped the horrendous, blatant discrimination toward homosexuality, correlating homosexuality with immorality. Tension between reality and bigoted “morality� results in movies like But, I’m a Cheerleading being rated NC-17, reportedly because of a scene in which a fully-clothed female masturbates, while the film American Pie, in which a young male masturbates/fornicates with a pie, receives an R rating. Reading this, one might be angry and confused at such blatant sexism, but don’t forget, she not only a female, she’s a lesbian female. God forbid anyone under 17 see that.

Posted by mayxx145 at 11:23 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I find it puzzling that the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is so secretive. They do not disclose their board members names and they work in a gated building with guards and tinted windows. In addition, they sign a legal document, which makes them promise to never say or write anything about the MPAA without Valenti's (former President) permission.

By running such a secretive business, one can only assume they have something to hide. Their secretive ways leave filmmakers and avid moviegoers wonder, how exactly they determine the ratings of a film. A.O. Scott, author of "Some Material May be Inappropriate or Mystifying, and the Rating System May be as Well" agrees that the MPAA's rating system is nothing short of "mystifying."

After watching the documentary, "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" it seems there is no actual standards the raters reference when rating films. This is evident from the fact that no rater requires training or credentials going into the job, there are no child behavioral experts on the board, and in a tie breaker the "extra conservative" chairmen gets to vote twice. The board also tends to rate sex as worse than violence. Their lack of "standards" makes me wonder if the children's best interest is at heart.

The MPAA says they keep secret to avoid "outside influence." This is precisely why so many disagree with their system. No outside feedback is allowed, in fact when the P.I. tried to call the MPAA it went to an automated answering machine. If no feedback comes in or out of the MPAA there is no way to improve their corrupt system.

I am not opposed to the fact that the MPAA exists because some things should be censored for kids; however, I am opposed to the way in which the MPAA runs its entire rating system. After watching this film I realize how corrupt the film industry is with six leading conglomerates and a poor rating system.

Posted by dollx040 at 10:12 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

A.O. Scott, author of "Some Material May be Inappropriate or Mystifying, and the Rating System May be as Well" states "The little boxes that appear at the bottom of the print advertisements are sometimes helpful . . .but they can also be mystifying" (1).

This article examines the documentary, "This Film is Not Yet Rated", which analyzes the rating system of films (i.e. PG-PG-13) and the various criteria (if any) that these rating systems are based on.

The documentary uses various tactics to analyze the film board such as interviews, movie clips, and sound bites. Eventually they even hire a spy to get "inside information" on the various rating board members.

The article goes on to describe how the rating system is a mystery. As evident from the documentary, many inconsistencies are found from the rating of one film to the next. For example, after comparing two films, one with explicit "female sexual pleasure" and one with just talk of sex, they both received the same rating.

Therefore, what makes one film PG and the other PG-13? The answer to this question is fuzzy, which makes one wonder, "if there is not a fixed criteria for rating films, what influences the rating system?"

The answer may lie with popular culture. For instance, the example above states that two films with very different content are rated the same, one dealing with "female sexual pleasure" and the other merely with talk of sex. Is popular culture more or less accepting of "female sexual pleasure" as opposed to "male sexual pleasure"? Either way, popular culture has a hand in deciding movie ratings.

Popular culture influences many other issues discussed in class, for example we examined the power Hollywood (driven by pop culture) has over the content of films. They have the ability to reinforce the values and beliefs of the mainstream if they choose to. In addition, we witnessed the power the government has over film content. This was especially evident during WWII when the OWI controlled all information that went into the U.S. (film, media etc.)

Thus, throughout history, we see that pop culture influences everything from Hollywood filmmakers, to film ratings, to government decisions. The list could go on and on, and will continue to do so until society learns to not take everything they see and hear at face value. One must question the authenticity and motives of mainstream America.

Posted by dollx040 at 5:24 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This film is not yet rated was a very sneaky-type of documentary highlighted by the INF. It exposed the corruption and hypocrisy that occurs within the Hollywood rating system and the in consistent rating criteria standing being held against preferred films and conglomerates. Kirby Dick essentially stalked filmmakers of large films, to find out the ins and outs of the filmmaking and subsequent film rating industries. I found in interesting when the interviewed the makers of “Boys Don’t Cry “to find that homosexuality in film was increasingly scrutinized against in terms of ratings strictness and obtaining an NC-17, R, Pg-13, etc. this film shows the exploitation of independent films as they become even pickier with independent films in order to be more lenient on larger, less controversial, bigger box office films. When Independent films tend to have more controversial plotlines anyway, it becomes an outlet for false justification of unfair rating practices.
In all outlets of media that we have studied, we see the ways in which politics interplay with censorship in order to drive a consumerist, marketed ideal. Unfortunately the portrayals put forth by the media have been proven to be damaging to the countercultures as they are shown biasedly and continually pushed towards the conservative mainstream’s level of comfort. The problem with this is that society misses out the truly unique and potentially progressive, fairly represented countercultural lifestyles, in exchange for a fabricated, profit driven, censored, “give them what they want to hear� version of popular culture.

Posted by joh03704 at 3:53 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

During the lecture we discussed Hip-Hop and rap. The initial discussion revolved around what hip hop and rap are. On this topic one of the presenters made a very nice quote that “rap is the literature of Hip-Hop�. This portrays very nicely how the presenters were saying that Hip-Hop was a lifestyle and rap is a part of that.

Another interesting topic that was brought up was that their does not really seem to be any literature of America. I think the presenters were correct in that we could not pick a genera or set of authors who write “American literature�. On this topic I think the presenters were 100% correct in that popular music is the literature of America. It represents the culture and beliefs and attitudes of most Americans as it reflects their beliefs.

I disagree with the statement that modern rap is a dilution of real rap as the presenters put it. Rap is a type of music and thus through it opinions and causes can be represented but that does not make rap a part of those causes. When the music rap was introduced to mainstream culture the music form was adapted to represent the more mainstream beliefs and customs of the majority of America. This does not mean that it was diluted, it means that it changed to represent a different belief system. Also even though rap often ignores social and political issues I do not believe that it is due to a dilution of what rap is, but instead is a reflection of mainstream culture not caring nearly as much as the initial producers of rap about those subjects.

I also disagree with classifying graffiti as art. It is possible that some people consider it so, especially those making it, but I do not believe it makes it art. It is vandalism and should not be looked on in a positive light.

I also think that people who create hip hop define what hip hop is and that is what causes the gap between academics and rappers. Academics try to define something that I believe changes continuously with time. This means that once they have a definition of what Hip Hop is they are placing a constraint upon something that will not be able to be defined by that definition days or years from its conception.

I also believe that a large part of the fall of the popularity of rap as a social tool was caused by the producers of it not adapt to social changes. They sung about important issues but as these issues became unimportant to most America they did not changing what they were singing about, or at least saying it in a different way. This made their music loose its effectiveness.

Posted by andre368 at 11:57 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I thought this weeks panel discussion on Rap/Hip-Hop was extremely interesting, and I thought Professor Tate and Professor Riviere did an excellent job in thoroughly answering all of the questions which Anthony asked them, many times going above and beyond what was asked. Both of the Professor's showed that they knew a lot about hip-hop culture, and you could tell that they were passionate about it in the way that they answered the questions. I have been listening to "underground" hip-hop almost exclusively for the past six years, and a lot of what intrigues me about the genre is the lyricism, or as Professor Tate likes to call it the "rap poetry", part of the music. I enjoy listening to hip-hop that makes me think. Slug (from the Minneapolis based Atmosphere) is a "rap poet" who intrigues me because his style of lyricism revolves heavily around complex metaphors, and the human psyche. Most of his rhymes cannot simply be taken at face value; they have to be dissected, a lot of the time extensively, if you really want to understand what he is trying to say. I actually LEARN stuff when I listen to Slug; I rarely learn anything listening to KDWB or B96. Because I focus most of my attention on the lyrics in hip-hop songs, I agreed with most of what Professor Tate had to say. I really liked his analogy of radio-rap being the Stephen King novel of the genre. If I want to be entertained without having to do too much thinking, I can pick up a Stephen King, or a Tom Clancy novel. If I want to be entertained, but have to actually think about what I'm reading, I'll read F. Scott Fitzgerald or Toni Morrison. I do listen to mainstream rap, I admit it. The thing is, when I listen to it I am almost always at a party or something similar. That is another point that I think Professor Riviere brought up. She said that conscious hip-hop will never be mainstream because you can't dance to it or bump it in the club. Also because the majority of people are too stupid to understand what conscious rappers are trying to say, but that's a whole other story. Anyway, thanks to this discussion I am going to try to take a class from either Professor Tate or Professor Riviere this summer because they clearly know what they are talking about, and I want to learn more from people who think about the culture similarly to me.

Posted by ruppx051 at 11:48 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

With hip-hop on the rise it's a troubling subject to really define. I would like to pan off of the quote I had placed in my question by the author Reyhan Harmanci that states, “An urban, youth-oriented culture based on rhyme and color that originated in the black and latino communities in New York during the 70’s.� This quote starts of our definition very broadly. Yes, I believe that hip-hop did start of in the 1970's, but this was also the era of hippies and John Lennon. Could rock possibly put an influence in on hip-hop, instead of stereotyping the black and Hispanic cultures?

We talked about how rock in the mid-1900's could have caused women to become un-pure, which most likely was stemmed from boredom. We talk about how hip-hop is so dangerous to our younger generations that know more than we did at the age of 12, but we never blame this on the music. I believe that by looking at all the beneficial factors that my working definition of hip-hop is..."A teen/youth-oriented culture based on rhyme, rhythm, and movements that could has originated from all types of music, rock, big band, early rap, ect. It is an artist way of expressing oneself and creating a new sound for new listeners (i.e. the new youth generation)."

Posted by carr0445 at 11:47 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

One of the questions that I submitted was about whether or not hip-hop artists viewed hip-hop as a job or a lifestyle. The discussion of hip-hop in an art form versus hip-hop as a job came up. Alexs was discussing how he feels that hip-hop is his job and he aims to make sure that there are always people that are professional at analyzing the hip-hop scene. He said he thinks it is extremely important to have a strong separation from hip-hop academia and actual hip-hop art. I could tell that he had a high level of respect and knowledge of the hip hop world. He also made it clear that he knows that his expertise is the analytical factor and not the actual performing, and he made it clear that it was not important to him if he was liked by the performers. He mentioned that he has met numerous "stars" if you will and it is not his goal to be liked by them. I thought Melissa's theory about territory was also very interesting because it is completely true that it is a groups duty to defend their turf. So, the answer to the question would probably be that there are many aspects to the hip-hop world and depending on which part you belong to , academics or performing, is the deciding factor as to whether it is viewed as a job or a lifestyle.,

Posted by cloy0004 at 11:41 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

It was interesting to have a lot of the facts and fogginess surrounding rap and hip-hop, and the culture that goes with them explain to me at this week’s discussion with Melissa Rivere and Professor Alex Pate. My questions had to deal with the violence associated with rap music and the venues associated with it. While these questions weren’t overtly answered, there was a lot of good information presented that allow me to better understand and try to answer them.
The violence associated with the music probably has to deal with the popular masculine message being presented; this message being popular to the ‘tough guy’ image which is portrayed by the people who listen to and purchase the music. The evolution of the message of financially successful rap, deemed ‘popular’, leads to the pushing of issues that are seen as profitable without really seeing what the message is that is being presented. This message is absorbed by the listening public and although not immediately shown, is seen as typifying the crowd associated with that music, which makes the people who are listening to that music, themselves being viewed as violent.
My other issue, dealing with the academics and hip-hop, was answered by Pate and Rivere. They felt that much of the academic learning and information being presented took too specifically one issue of rap or hip-hop and tried to explain the entire culture without looking at how the entire culture affects everything inside of it. Pate also felt that rap should continue to push out the message even though if it was unpopular with academics or popular culture, and that the study of rap shouldn’t deal with how the culture affects popular culture, more that it should be viewed upon as modern literature, the poems of today, and the job of academics were to sort through the messages being presented and disseminate and objectively rate them.

Posted by nemme003 at 11:36 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The thing that struck me the most about the discussion was that "hip hop is the carrot" when it comes to academics. A class about hip hop or rap is not necessarily a class solely dedicated to that subject. Hip hop provides the framework to discuss important cultural topics such as censorship and civil rights. Also, the fact that the panel thought it was important to keep academics separate from the hip hop community was interesting. They thought it is good that the teachers and professors stay "objective observers" because it makes it easier for them to comment on the community. When you look in from the outside and your not in the thick of things you can make unbiased commentary and observations. I agree with the fact that the professors need to stay somewhat separated from the culture but they cannot be completely out of touch. They should be respected within the community or they will not hold any credibility.

Posted by fran0723 at 11:18 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The panel discussion on hip-hop and rap was quite informative and spoke to many of the issues that face rap today. As time has gone on, hip-hop and rap have not necessarily lost all of their ability to artistically express political and societal issues, but it has become more of a rarity. As one of the panelists said, rap in America has started to be made more for entertainment value. Yet, in many other countries hip-hop has truly turned into a form of political expression. Because rap in America is made primarily with the intention of providing entertainment, some of the artistic expression of this music form has been hidden.

Hip-hop and rap both mean different things to different people. As in any form of expression (art, music, film, theater, etc.) there are different stories and morals expressed and all people decipher these messages differently. The mainstream tends to take rap and hip-hop at more of a surface level. If the music and the beat are good it will get listened to. Whereas the minority tend to look at the deeper message conveyed through this type of music and can relate to a lot of what is being said in these songs.

Posted by Martine Schroeder at 11:18 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Hip-hop is a culture that includes graffiti, break dancing, dj-ing and lyricism. It is a label that also encompasses the myriad aspects of the culture ranging from fashion and social to history and politics. Overall it is meant to be a form of oppositional expression questioning the mainstream. As Melisa said it is an attempt to “reunite marginalized community in a positive way against oppression�. Often attributed to a cluster of artists in the Bronx in the early 70s, hip-hop has expanded to become a mainstream culture itself.
As hip-hop has moved past a localized manifestation confined to a select group it has lost some of its unifying characteristic. Particular regions have their own styles and language that are directed at a specific audience. Furthermore there is an increasing categorization of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ hip-hop that escapes consensus. While most agree that commercial hip-hop and rap is more popular for its head bopping beats and big label backing, therefore ‘bad’; there is less agreement on what qualifies as ‘good’.
Simply being commercially successful is in a way ‘good’ as the message is sent to so many more receivers. However frequently the lyrics are devoid of any oppositional stance and are simply glamorizing questionable elements of the hip-hop life style. The focus on bling bling and misogyny towards women are two examples of this. It reinforces negative viewpoints instead of unifying and oppressed people. At the same time it reconfirms stereotypical expectations of the mainstream.
The current hip-hop debate is especially pronounced in academia as universities try to include this influential way of life in scholarly pursuits. The ever changing culture and general distrust of establishments can further confuse the situation. To be respected in academic circles one needs background in a variety of fields that can simultaneously remove a certain amount of credibility within the street community. It is important for ‘experts’ to have grounding in both worlds yet maintain their objectivity to effectively contribute to a meaningful discussion of hip-hop.

Posted by shaw0139 at 11:14 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In the discussion panel this week, Alex and Melissa discussed the importance that there is much more to hip-hop and rap than meets the eye. It is much more than just music and the popularity contests of these “iconic� rap artists controlling the industry. For many it is a way of life and a culture. Unlike these “artists� that are producing this mainstream “bad rap� music, Alex and Melissa explained that those that live and breathe true hip-hop and rap are musical poets. These musical poets produce the “good rap� music, but it does not get played on the popular radio stations. It is forced to remain underground because major corporations buy all the air time to ensure their bad rap is played. I found it interesting that hip-hop is considered the culture and rap is the literature. The lyrics of the “good rap� contain information pertaining to the artists, like where they are from and the events that have shaped their life. Hip-hop and rap bring the community together and addresses issues of the society.
This was all really interesting to me. I had previously presumed rap and hip-hop were perhaps rivals. But learning that they are connected and in fact a part of each other was very interesting. I prefer hip-hop over rap, but then again we are only exposed the “bad� stuff on the radio. The panel discussion was interesting and informative this week. It was nice to learn from people involved.

Posted by elmxx014 at 11:13 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In his article, Foucault’s Turntable: Hip-Hop Scholars Bumrush the Academy, Hua Hsu argues that recent scholars have changed the way in which they approach the study of Hip-Hop. For example, Hsu uses Todd Boyd, a scholar, as an exemplar for this new approach. According to Hsu, Boyd states that, “In [his] mind, a lot of universities have been behind—they wait for something to happen and then they jump on it. To [him], that’s a very old-school model. The academy should anticipate and predict situations so as to inform not only members of the academy, but society at large.� I can go about commenting on this statement in one of two ways. First is the pre-hip-hop rap panel discussion response. Before last week’s forum, I simply would have said that I agree with this comment wholeheartedly. It made complete sense to me that instead of sitting back and letting the curriculum dictate the classroom setting, it is more alive and efficient to predict the next trends of the hip-hop movement in order to learn them as they are happening. With this methodology, Boyd is staying with the movement instead of lagging behind it.

However, after the hip-hop panel discussion, I may not entirely agree with Boyd’s teaching style. Both speakers involved in the discussion stressed the importance of history in hip-hop. The past truly defined hip-hop and made it into what it is today. The new trends that are emerging in hip-hop are not predictable, but fluid, and have deep historical roots. While Boyd may have an advantage in following the many hip-hop movements because of his ability to foresee such trends, staying side-by-side with hip-hop is irrelevant if you don’t know the origins of such a culture. As Melissa Rivieré said in the discussion—“You have to know where you came from before you can get where you want to go.�

Posted by stap0069 at 11:12 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In this week's reading, Thill argues, “Hip-hop art is way bigger than rap music, and in fact it is probably one of the biggest arts movements in the last few decades.� This statement implies a distinction between rap music and Hip-hop, and raises questions regarding what it is that sets them apart. Before this week’s panel discussion, I would have jumped to the conclusion that these two are one in the same. However, by observing the explanations offered by the expert panelists my original assumption proves to be very wrong. Hip hop is more than just a genre of music; Hip-hop is a culture. This culture, like that of many others, is one that strongly revolves around the idea of expression. This expression is multidimensional and can be observed through fashion, style, language, music, lyrics, graffiti, literature, and various arts. The experts explained this by describing the original dynamics of hip-hop as a combination of various expressions, and rap or lyricism being just one of these pieces that make up a total package of hip-hop.

Instead of limiting our understanding of this rapidly rising culture to stereotypical views such as the violent lyrics found in some “rap� songs, it is important to start thinking critically about this evolving culture, digging deeper than just the surface and finding the roots of this culture and examining it from several dimensions; something that is more commonly being done by academic institutions all over the country. By just one discussion, we are aready forced to think critically and have learned such basic things that might have been previously falsified, such as the distinction between hip-hop and rap music, and are significantly more well aware of the various dimensions that make up this cultural movement and the way it affects various aspects of popular culture, society, and even politics.

Posted by munoz047 at 10:48 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

First off I just want to say that I really enjoyed the panel discussion and what professor Pate and Melissa Rivere’s ideas on Hip-Hop. Before last weeks class I perceived Rap and Hip-Hop as the same thing, but I soon realized that they are not the same. Professor Pate explained that Hip-Hop is meant to bring people together while Rap on the other hand lyrically talks about murder, policy brutality, and racial tension.
Hip-Hop is growing in popularity it today’s society because it is about bring people closer together rather then promoting violence like rap. Hip-Hop is may not seem to be as popular because each generation change the vibe of the music. In the article Hip-Hop Chaos in Context talks about how Hip-Hop has been considered to be dead, but really it is because “there is a tension between the youth culture and the formerly youth culture� (Thill).
Hip-Hop is more then just a genre music, it brings people together for the great good of society

Posted by white968 at 10:46 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The rap and hip hop discussion was great. It was obvious that Alexs Pate, his TA, and Melisa Rivere were deeply passionate about the topic at hand. They provided an insight and redefined what I had never given much of a thought to before, rap and hip hop. Although my questions were not specifically answered, what was discussed during the panel opposed one of the things Jeff Change said from the interview with Thill Scott. Scott says that hip hop never really said "I am hip hop, and this is why?� I believe it was Pate who said "Hip hop is a culture guided by its opposition to mainstream." One of the main points of the discussion was to define hip hop and how and why it became what it was. Hip hop does address and define itself with its confrontational style.
There is so much to the hip hop culture that I was unaware of before the panel discussion, most likely because groups like public enemy aren't around to say something of substance today. I agreed whole heartedly with the point the speakers made about mainstream rap and hip hop and how their political messages have disappeared. The rap on the radio is not about defining ourselves or our generation, or really anything. Today music is extremely limited in order to comply with the clear channel bullshit, no on is acting out. I liked how Aleks Rate uses rap poetry and rap poets to define rap lyrics and rap artists. I like it because its how he looks at their work, as meaningful art. That's why he said the rap and hip hop on the radio are not good, you definitely can not call that poetry.

Posted by kolsu002 at 10:44 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

After listening to some songs written around the time of the LA race riots and listening to some of the rap songs that are popular today, I noticed a stark difference between the songs of then and the songs of now in overall content. This made me wonder why the rap music of the late 80s-early 90s had a very meaningful, and often political message, while the rap music that is widely heard and widely available today has very little meaning. The majority of the songs I have heard recently center around the topics of sex, the nightlife, superiority, and overall stupidity and egocentricity. Although rap music isn't my first genre choice, I respect all GOOD rap; rap with a purpose and a message as an art form. My question came after reading Theresa A. Martinez's "Pop Culture and Oppostitional Culture: Rap as Resistance." Martinez argues that gangsta rap music from the late 80s to the early 90s was a powerful outcry against the racist and injust establishment, and “perhaps, one of the most intriguing examples of…resistance� (Martinez 272). Does rap music today still seem to hold these important values and ideals that it did twenty years ago or has the message of the music completely changed direction? The answer to my question came briefly into the panel discussion, inspired by similar questions from the audience and answered by both Alexs and Melisa. The answer came in parts. First, Alexs referred to the crap you hear on the radio nowadays as "cookie cutter" rap, most likely produced and sold to you by someone who is capitalizing on the "sub-culture" movement and selling your image right back to you. Alexs said that this meaningless noise that fills the airwaves, clubs, and parties nowadays is particularly an American occurrence. He said that "on a global level, hip hop is still very political, and those outside of the US don't even consider the 'rap' coming out of the US rap at all." Good rap exists, it is just hard to find these days. "Conscious hip-hop," as it is called, is a unique art form and is great because it is real and deals with real issues that are a concern to modern people in those circumstances. We can all learn about problems people are dealing with by educating ourselves with this "conscious hip hop." I dig it.

Posted by probe001 at 10:43 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I can say that the panel discussion did open my eyes to the world of rap and hip-hop. I've never liked rap or hip-hop except for the occasional song, and this may be because I only hear mainstream music in these categories. The mainstream is used to get money and to create a certain environment that everyone is used to. The negative emotions shown in rap and hip-hop can be construed as violence towards those who are not privy to the inner working of the non-mainstream version of this music. I feel that I need to experience this music in its natural environment with it's ultimate message against the mainstream to be able to enjoy rap and hip-hop. Both of these are a culture that can't be disregarded just because many people on hear it on the radio or see it on tv. Cultures must be experienced before they can be praised or written off.

Posted by Chris Lewis at 10:29 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

It was interesting to hear the views of the panel judges regarding the progression of hip-hop. Theresa Martinez describes hip-hop as a type of rioting, while Scott Thrill talked about how mainstream entertainment removes the original context of the art. It was interesting that the speakers agreed with the two statements and explained how they are not mutually exclusive. Melisa said that hip-hop itself is a cultural representation, and is defined by its opposition to the dominant mainstream. Alexs said that rap is the literature of hip-hop, and the diluted version that has been commercialized does not represent the culture. Hip-hop is alive and well, but the mainstream has picked up one version of its art to sell to consumers.

Posted by schr0845 at 10:24 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I really enjoyed the panel discussion this week. It was a very interesting look into today’s culture of hip-hop and rap, along with the challenges, and changes that have occurred. Both Professor Pate and Melissa Riviere’s ideas were very interesting. I was not aware of the major differences between rap and hip-hop, and before this panel just thought they were both regarded as the same genre. Professor Pate claimed that hip-hop is a culture, and rap is the literature of that culture. I further learned that hip-hop is meant to bring people together, while gangster rap looks at police brutality and racial tensions. This was very surprising, as I personally did not separate the two music genres.

It was very interesting to hear about the development of rap and hip-hop genres over the years. Both music genres are much more political than I thought. Melissa Riviere mentioned that on a global level, hip-hop is very political. Rose explained, “ rap’s (or Hip Hop’s) political development sustains that rap music was not always political� (pp. 276). Today, it isn’t used as much as a means for social change, which was the case when it began as an apolitical “party music�. Public Enemy was an example of the emergence of rap as a political cultural form. According to Rose “Public Enemy’s success opened the door too more politically and racially explicit material� (pp. 276). It was clear during the discussion panel that the use of rap and hip-hop is important, and has been used to be politically active. It was great to hear that, in parts of the world rap and hip-hop are still used to fight political power worldwide.

Posted by campb503 at 10:19 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In this week’s discussion, unfortunately I was not able to have either of my questions answered. However, my question can be related and answered using one of the discussions we had.

Sister Souljah, referring to rap music, states, “When you look at the dances you don’t see it and when you listen to the music and you don’t hear a call, then you missed the jam.� And Rose refers to the music as “volume, looped drum beats and bass frequencies.�

• What type of musical and social power does rap music have?

I refer to Alexs visualization of what rap really is. Rap is a sort of thing that you have on your street corner or in your neighborhood and how true or real the music’s meaning really is, is measured by the extent to which people from outside of the original group can understand and relate to the literature being expressed. An example of a socially weak music is the commercialized rap being broadcasted and force fed from the local, self-proclaimed hip-hop stations. This type of music has a widespread “understanding� and is seemingly applicable to just general scenarios like “In Da Club�. A socially powerful music is that of Mos Def who generally represents his hometown of Brooklyn and upholds that street corner shine. The social power seems to be greater the more unique and confined the music is.

Posted by luli0004 at 10:04 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

"Blood Brothers" by Henry Louis Gates, Jr. is a provocative interview done on Albert and Allen Hughes with regards to "Menace II Society." It follows what happened to the two of them after the release of their box office hit and their fight to get to the top of their drama by showing the difference between "good" violence and "bad" violence. When we were in the discussion someone asked if where you were from or what your educational background was was a big deal within the hip- hop community? When Gates questions them about where they grew up the Hughes brothers get a little up in arms about it. They ask him another question. "You don't ask Spielberg that shit. You don't ask Tim Burton where he grew up." (Gates, 166). In the discussion the speakers believed that it does have to do with where you are from popularity wise. People might not respect you if you are rapping like you are from the ghetto when really you went to school for performing arts or grew up in a predominately white community like Tupac. Pate said that there is a place for intellectuals in hip hop and that it is necessary for someone to have a birds-eye view of the genre. He argues that there needs to be someone watching out, making sure these artists realize what they're putting out there or else they might lose focus of what they are trying to accomplish.

Another thing we focused on in the lecture was the importance of a 'hood or the place where an artist calls home. You hear all the rap artists talk about their different regions like East Coast, West Coast or "The Dirty," but they may not necessarily live there. They move out when they get rich. I thought it was awesome to here these brothers talk about how they still live in Pomona because that's who they are and that's where they shot their movies. They learned to direct from that culture.

Posted by stor0245 at 9:56 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Hip Hop forum with Alex Pate and Melisa Riviera was an eye opening discussion because I have never studied the history or investigated the subject matter deeply and have a light knowledge of this area. I wasn’t even aware there was a course on Anthropology of Hip-Hop. Or Rap for that matter. Through the media I was used to hearing how Hip-Hop is a degenerated music on the youth culture, but listening to the professors speak about how hip-hop was born from the Bronx of African Americans and Hispanic Americans as a reaction towards oppression of society and frustration changed my opinion about it. I didn’t grow up in America so I’m not aware of the earlier hip hop artists that are truer to the intentions of the art form. Hip Hop these days seem to have lyrics on the most superficial matters or degrading comments on female, which makes the art form even more unfortunate that conscious hip hop has been much less popular than the “popular� ones. Hearing about the politics of getting conscious hip hop music on the “playlist� radio stations was unbelievable for me, and further shows how capitalistic America is and genuine intentions for the best is pushed aside. I was skeptical when I read several articles on how the government distributed alcohol and drugs to control the rebellious groups but hearing it directly from the professors and how major record labels do not support real hiphop artists because of the nature of their content I find that upsetting. The forum definitely changed my perspective on hip hop and sparked my interest in listening to the old school hip-hop artists, and more respect for the art form and music.

Posted by lungx009 at 9:53 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Alexs Pate and Melisa Riviere both did a fabulous job discussing rap poetry and the role it plays in hip-hop. I specifically liked Melisa’s input. Melisa focused on the role that capitalism has played with respect to rap poetry. Traditionally, rap has been an under ground localized form of personal expression. Since rap’s birth, capitalism has steady exerted pressure on this notion. As stated by Scott Thill in Wiretap: Ideas for a New Generation, “Hypercapitalism has made hip-hop the preferred mode of artistic expression in the new millennium, and how such commodity fetishism has sucked away some of its racial, economic and sociopolitical contexts.� (Thill, 12) The result is a disconnect between what the general public considers to be rap and what is truly authentic rap poetry. The internet has increasingly changed this phenomenon though. Before the internet, wide scale record distribution was the biggest barrier facing rap poets. Today, artists are able to distribute their music to the entire globe instantly. Website such as myspace, facebook, and youtube have been the major catalysts. So, today with distribution no longer being a barrier, rap music has pervaded the globe and truly become an international phenomenon.

Posted by John Erck at 9:51 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

My series of questions were based on Tricia Rose’s statement, “That a present day African American popular culture expression is yet another form of oppositional culture in the face of perceived institutional discrimination, racial formation and urban decay.� One discussion panel question I derived from this statement was how rap and hip hop artists are perceived by their own culture when they are no longer opposing the dominate mainstream, but instead, are participating in it? I believe that Melisa said it best when she referred to commercial hip hop and rap as “cookie cutter� hip hop and rap and what Professor Pate referred to as “garbage�. I don’t think either of them disagrees with the fact that hip hop still brings people together, but the opposition to the institution is no longer present once that artist is commercialized by the institution itself. My reason for believing this is due to a filter that I think all music goes through before it hits the mainstream and that primary filter would be the commercial potential of the song, not necessarily the political message. That is where the opposition is lost because the raps are no longer raw messages being sent out on the street corner or at a local venue, but instead mass produced and judged not on the content, but the marketability. So, to answer my own question, when rap and hip hop artists that represent the oppositional culture end up conforming to the mainstream then they longer pose a threat to the mainstream and lose their credibility.

Posted by cros0189 at 9:50 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This discussion really opened my eyes to the hip hop culture. I never really have been into hip hop but it was really cool to get the inside scoop on it. I kind of had always thought that hip hop and rap was almost the same thing. I didn’t realize that “rap was the lyrics to the hip hop culture.�
I also thought it was interesting that they both Alexs and Melissa thought that the music that we hear on the radio is not what true hip hop is. They said that it is all what the corporations want us to hear, that part of what we hear is due to how much money the company has to spend on “air time.� It made me laugh a little to think of my friends that are really into hip hop because technically they don’t know anything about the subject, because they listen to 96.3 and other radio stations like that.
I agreed with the fact that the hip hop revolution resembles the hippie movement. In both situations you have a group of people who are rebelling and starting a revolution. And they both used music as a tool. Alexs made a comment on how their culture wasn’t going to do it the way the republicans did, which is why they wore their pants on their ass and had their hats tilted to the side.
One more thing I thought was interesting was that they said there are no really good hip hop artist any more. How Public Enemy isn’t around anymore. A group that says it like it is. That rebels against the things that are oppressing them not about bitches, money, and cars like you hear today.

Posted by robak003 at 9:47 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I am not, and never have been, a fan of rap music, so I was a little skeptical coming into Wednesday’s discussion lecture. However, I was pleasantly surprised and captivated by both of the speakers, Alex Pate and Melisa Riviere, and I thought they provided many interesting views on the subject of hip-hop and urban culture. As someone who is almost always disappointed (and borderline disgusted) by the content of rap music, I was comforted when I heard the speakers say that most publicized rap music is not representative of true hip-hop and urban culture. I was impressed by Alex’s seemingly deep analysis of what he calls “rap poetry,� and would really love to take his class and learn more about rap poetry with more literary merit than the contrived disgrace on the radio.

I also found it interesting that the speakers (Melisa in particular) viewed the popularization of rap music and hip-hop culture as a form of suppression of the black community. The idea makes sense, as rap music at its inception was meant to be a protest of the mainstream ideals and culture. As the music becomes popularized and accepted into the “mainstream,� the music tends to lose its significance as a counterculture force. I can see how frustrating of a situation this must be for those who are working hard to fight against popular culture, making it a very powerful strategy for those orchestrating it. I think this strategy is used very frequently to crush minority opposition when it is rooted in a defiant form of expression.

Posted by dunh0037 at 9:42 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I thought that the hip-hop discussion panel was really intriguing, as it brought real world perspectives on hip-hop from two people who are true experts on the subject. That being said, I thought Alexs’ response to why academia and hip-hop should be separated was especially enlightening. In the article “Foucault’s Turntable� by Hua Hsu, Boyd is quoted as saying “In my mind, a lot of universities have been behind—they wait for something to happen
and then they jump on it…Within this group of people who write about hip-hop, I find that a lot of them have a bit of a moralizing tone to what they say. It should be about the culture—this is what it is, with all its problems, all its warts. Take it for what it is. Deal with it, break it down, chop it up, and leave it for somebody else to do with it what they want, know what I'm sayin'?� The question poised to Alexs involved what validation he saw for the apparent separation between the scholarly world of hip-hop and the streets that hip-hop ultimately originates. His response was that the scholarly world “should be separate� and that academia allows us “to think about it, not what’s the hottest.� Furthermore, he said that “if someone isn’t shepparding it, it will be marketed and fade to fad.� There is a lot of truth to what he said, as academia provides a way to be skeptical and objective about the hip-hop industry, and critique which way hip-hop is heading. I disagree that scholarly thinking alone will prevent rap and hip-hop from being bastardized and marketed, because the evidence is all around us that this is happening already. Take, for instance, what the panelists said about Nelly’s Air Force Ones song, which was ultimately created by Nike to launch its shoe line. Marketing is a necessary evil in our capitalist economy, but it detracts from the art and pure essence of what hip-hop is. By working in cahoots with “the man� to make a buck, the art form loses its anti-establishment edge.

Posted by ande4849 at 9:31 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Before I read the article on the interview with Jeff Chang, I thought the hip-hop culture was just about rap music. In the interview, Chang said that hiphop culture was designed to "bring people together and to raise the roof." During those days, the racial conflict between the black and the white culture was very bad, which forced the African American culture to produce what we called "hip-hop" these days. The black community attacked the social and political aspects of America by singing or rapping the lyrics. However, I thought that hip-hop culture these days talks more about sex, money and power instead of focusing more on the political and social issues. Chang believed that hip-hop culture is evolving from talking more about deracination, which is eliminating the racial issues. The question that i asked myself was that how the theme of "bringing people together and raising the roof" relates to the hip-hop culture that we have today, which, i think, focuses more on sex, money and power. I think over the last 20-30 years, hip-hop culture became a lot more subtle regarding the racial issues, which made the artists to talk more about what they desire and what they are proud of in today's society. I believe that black community talks about sex, money and power to show what they are capable of doing and i think thats the way they represent their culture - by showing those elements, i think, they bring people together. The racial issues today is a lot more subtle than it was back in the days, so I believe that these elements symbolyzes their culture and that's what they were desiring for the last few decades.

Posted by katay007 at 9:22 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion panel this week in class because it gave us a great inside look on the hip-hop and rap industry. Professor Pate and Melisa Riviere were extremely interesting and it was really cool to see the differences between the hip-hop and rap "spheres." After listening to the panelists I definitely stand by my beliefs in that I do not believe that vulgar lyrics have anything to do with the fact that hip-hop is at the top of the music industry. The hip-hop and rap industry has grown so much in the last 10-15 years and it is not because of the type of language that the artists are using in their songs. The way that children are brought up these days is a lot different than in the past and the music that they are listening to is also. According to Professor Pate, Hip-Hop and rap is a medium that helps to bring people together. The vulgar language has nothing to do with why hip-hop is at the top of the charts rather I believe that it has to do with the greater appreciation that us Americans have of the lyrics and the music that these artists are writing. I really enjoyed both panelists and I believe that they did a great job answering a lot of our questions that we had about the hip-hop and rap industry.

Posted by kapla137 at 9:22 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The panel discussion this week was very interesting and really put a real person’s perspective on the topic of hip-hop in today’s culture. We got a chance to listen to some different, opinionated, passionate views on the subject at hand. The question that I was most drawn to over the course of the discussion was the issue of what hip-hop does for the community. For example at one point Alex addressed the issue that hip-hop is a type of genre of music that could really bring people together. Hip-hop is produced by a variety of cultures and the enjoyment people get from the music really creates a common bonding ground for many different types of people. I also found it interesting when the panel touched on the issue of commercialism within the production of hip-hop and rap. Alex had some strong views on what he thought of commercialism and how large record labels tend to dominate the radio. Also, the fact that many radio stations plays the “popular� songs of the time, which really doesn’t give other music a chance to become as popular. This action by the record labels and radio stations can be seen as a bias action towards many other types of less “popular� or “radio friendly� music.

Posted by zabor005 at 9:18 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Wednesday’s discussion with Professor Pate and Melisa Riviere was extremely interesting and informative. As someone who does not listen to hip-hop or rap, the panel offered insight into a genre and social/cultural milieu I was not familiar with. Both Professor Pate and Riviere are qualified experts on the topic, as they both are involved in the artistic and academic aspects of hip-hop. This idea of expertise and credibility was discussed in some depth on Wednesday. The difference between hip-hop spheres in academia and the community play an integral role in how hip-hop is understood. Professor Pate said he there should be a separation of these two spheres. In order to have critical interpretation and explanation the divide needs to be kept, otherwise hip-hop turns into nothing more than marketing and commercialism. Riviere called this a divide between practice and theory, yet at the same time hip-hop can be used to entertain and teach. She noted that hip-hop can give insights into the justice system, marginalization and social change.

The sole academic study of hip-hop may lose some experts’ credentials without the aesthetic appreciation as well. Hip-hop is meant to bring people together, and without both aspects this is harder to accomplish. Marginalized people and their product of hip-hop cannot support the exploitation experienced when hip-hop is without academic examination. Gangster rap looks at racial tensions and police brutality. Other forms of hip-hop deal with government and personal empowerment, all of which need academic exploration. These issues are not always understood by those who do not have to deal with racism or inequality. Hip-hop can act as an “excursion into cultures different than your own,� which Professor Pate said is a good thing. Though scholarship focusing on hip-hop is young, it is out there and should be used in framing social and cultural understanding.

Posted by Candice Dehnbostel at 8:57 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I will admit that rap music and the hip-hop culture is not something that I actively pursue and consume. With that, I was somewhat skeptical that the panel discussion “Hip-Hop Culture and American Politics: Past and Present,� was going to be something that held my attention. Despite my trepidation, though, I found the panelists, Alexs Pate and Melisa Riviere, knowledgeable and informative, and their discussion interesting and thought provoking. They provided a different prospective to the world of hip-hop than that in which I was familiar (i.e. the “gangsta� stereotype) and made me understand the history and motivations behind this music and culture.

In preparation for the panel discussion, I prepared a question to be answered by the panelists. My question was regarding the overwhelming popularity of hip-hop music amongst the white populace. I was curious to find out what the draw was for this demographic, as it concerns issues that might not be relative to most. In addressing this question, Prof. Pate stated that it is harder to trace urban purchasing of hip-hop music and products, because it does not take into account the bootleg copies being produced and other indiscernible ways of consuming this product. For white consumers, with more of an expendable income, information on their purchasing habits are more easy to come by, as their purchases are usually made at large retailers, on the record. This explanation seems to address discrepancies in the product consumption records, but does not explain why there is such an interest in this music, by this demographic.

What both Prof. Pate and Prof. Riviere mentioned that might explain this interest, is the way hip-hop music and culture “brings people together.� They stated that rap and hip-hop is used when people want to resist and that it is essentially a rallying call, a means for people to gather and provide a united front against their oppressor. This explanation shows why not only white audiences, who may be fighting their “oppressor� on a more local or personal scale, but audiences the world over, have been drawn to the powerful medium of hip-hop music.

Posted by palaz012 at 8:57 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I really enjoyed the evening and particularly enjoyed what Profesor Pate had to say. I liked the way that I learned a lot more about hip-hop and rap rather than just knowing it as music that I listen to on a daily basis. It kind of put it in an new perspective for me.

Question: WireTrap mentions that hip hop is dead. But Jeff Chang disagrees and says that it is a different type of hip hop that was heard 10 to 15 years ago. What is your opinion on the condition of hip hop in today’s age?

Hip-hop has always been associated with the youth culture and not really with the older generations. Therefore, the hip-hop of today is different to the music that was classed as hip-hop 10 to 15 years ago. People of the older generation remember their style of the music, which is now completely different. Because of this they interpret it as being dead, as it is not what it used to be. So from that point of view, you could class hip-hop as being dead because it is not the same as it was a decade ago. However, like everything else in our world; it has evolved. The hip-hop of today's age reflects the youth of today. That is why it is not the same, but that does not mean it is dead. I would say it us very much alive, as it is a huge money making business. I am sure in another decade this same discussion will be taking place because, yet again the hip-hop music will be different from now and from the past, but it is because the people who are making it are putting their mark on o it.

Posted by culve018 at 8:32 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I enjoyed the panel discussion, but was disappointed when Prof. Pate left early. I was really interested in all he had to say, and felt the discussion was lacking after he departed. I felt in the short time he was there he really had everyone's attention and had many interesting things to say. I was expecting a longer session, and think the length of the evening may have been influenced by Prof. Pate's leaving. I am glad I was there, and it was very informative, just maybe not all that I was expecting.

The topic I took the most from was hip hop and how it translates to academics. Prof. Pate made a point that hip hop and the academic study of hip hip should be seperate from each other. His point was that the academics should be on the outside of the hip hop scene, in the background and listening to the music that is being produced. The academics are the watch dog that keeps the "poetry" real, and out of the mainstream. They are not the experts on the music, but they teach how to think about the music. Prof. Riviere made the point that hip hip is the carrot to get the student to learn other aspects of American history. By having students in her hip hop class, she is able to also teach them about other events in our history, such as the civil right movement.

Hip hop has sort of taken over for folk singers, such as Dylan and others, as the new protest music. Prof. Riviera made a good point about the lack of powerful political hip hop and rap today. She stated that when there is more repression there is greater protestation. Meaning that at this point in our history, there is less to protest about than there was in the past. There are still powerful messages coming out of hip hop, unfortunately, they are not getting mass play on radio stations and are more underground than in the past.

Posted by bela0003 at 8:08 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Question: How do you feel about the large trend of young white people attempting to adopt the hip hop "lifestyle" when it was born largely out of oppression, poverty, exposure to violence, etc., which many of the young white fans have never experienced?

Answer from Prof. Pate (extremely paraphrased): Any time one culture is actively exposing themselves to another culture, it is a good thing.

Professor Pate and Melisa had a lot of very interesting things to say during the panel discussion Wednesday. As a fan of hip hop, and most all other genres of music, I was excited to hear what they had to say. As a white person growing up in the racially homogenized suburbs of Milwaukee, I never experienced many of the things hip hop poets (to use Prof. Pate's term) spoke of. As I got older, branched out from white suburbia, and started to become "enlightened" to the social inequalities faced by Black individuals and other non-White people, I began to wonder if I had any business or "right" listening to hip hop. Listening to Mos Def's song, Mr. N****, is a prime example of this feeling I had. Mos raps about various experiences he has had with White people stereotyping him because he is Black. "Late night I'm on a first class flight, the only brother in sight, the flight attendant catch fright. I sit down in my seat 2C, she approach officially talkin' 'bout 'Excuse me'. Her lips curl up into a tight space, She don't believe that I'm in the right place. Showed her my boarding pass, and then she sort of gasped, all embarrassed put an extra lime on my water glass. An hour later here she comes by walking past, 'I hate to be a pest but my son would love your autograph', Wowwwww" (Mos Def). So, I'd listen to that song and in the back of my mind I'd wonder: "What if Mos Def was sitting next to me right now as I listen to his song about his experiences of white people oppressing him?" It definitely crossed my mind that he might say: "What the fuck are you listening to this for?", or something to that effect. Instead, reinforced by what Professor Pate had to say, I feel that Mos might be glad I was hearing his words. Even though I can't identify with the experiences Mos tells his listeners, I am learning through his song how racism is still a big problem worldwide. Although it isn't the same "brand" of racism it was 20, 50 or 150 years ago, it is still around. The flight attendant thought he couldn't possibly be sitting in first class because of her own prejudices. Once she realizes it is his seat, she gives him an extra lime to make it all better, then has the nerve to ask for his autograph, apparently not even realizing the gravity of her racist attitude towards him. It was an eye opening experience to listen to what the panelists had to say on Wednesday. I'll definitely continue to be a fan of hip hop, and hopefully the words from the artists I listen to will continue to enlighten me to the problems African Americans and others face in the world.

Posted by smit1989 at 7:30 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

One thing I've never understood before last Wednesday was what the difference between Hip Hop and Rap Music was. Theresa Martinez' article introduced to me the idea that rap was a component of hip hop along with breakdancing and grafitti, but Alexs Pate and Melisa Reviere cleared that up even further. Pate claimed that hip hop is a culture, and rap is the literature of that culture. Moreover they discussed how hip hop was an oppositional culture making comments to the mainstream: low-riding pants, house shoes, and sideways hats being as social commentary more than bad fashion sense. This really blew my mind, personally, because I've always looked at that style of dress as disrespectful and grungy, but when I look at it that way-- it's just like how Muslims wear veils and Hmongs have their own traditional dress they wear sometimes, only those involved in the hip hop culture who dress that way are taking it a step further, using their clothes as a statement which I find very respectable. You kind of have to respect people who do their own thing in a country that encourages conformity and peer pressure.

Posted by bergm150 at 7:12 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

It was good to be learn more about rap and hip-hop during the discussion last week. I myself is not a fan of any kind of hip-hop or rap music. I never listen to those songs on MTV or the radio. However, I still have some reference of what those songs are usually about and stereotypes about them. It's hard to be in American and not be influenced by those type of music. I have always thought those hip-hop and rap songs on MTV are what the hip-hop culture is all about. I have always thought of them as meaningless songs fill with booty shaking, pretty girls, hot cars, and profanities. It was great to learn that those song actually are the "bad literature" or "bad poetry", according to Page. It it exciting to learn the difference between hip-hop and rap. Page said that hip-hop is a culture, where rap is the literature of that culture. He said that the words of rap has singular significant. It's like a language of a culture. Also, I have also learned that rap is local; it's microscopic. It's an element in the hip-hop culture. It's is the first African-American export. It's within the hip-hop culture which brings the people closer together.
I think it's essential to remember that rap is a form of poetry, and the "rappers" are poets. I liked how Page made that me see how the real rap poetry is different from the rap on MTV.

Posted by truon052 at 6:12 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The question I was most interested in having answered was based on Debra Rosethal’s article “Hoods and Woods: Rap Music as Environmental Literature.� Associating rap music with the inner-city gang culture has long existed, and I had always wondered what the distinction between rap and hip-hop was. This was one of the first discussions held by the panel of Alexs Pate and Melisa Riviere.

The explanation that hip-hop is a culture, whereas rap is the literature of that culture makes some sense. Alexs went on to explain that rap is a form of poetry used to literate opposition to the dominant mainstream. I find it interesting, however, that if rap is in resistance to mainstream, its commercialization has essentially watered down or eroded the principles in which it was founded.

Alexs placed this idea in excellent context. He feels that there is “good� rap, non-mainstream poetry that could accurately be viewed as a descriptor of its society (this is the argument Rosenthal discusses) and “bad� rap, which would included a more commercialized form of its music (including artists such as Nelly and Will Smith).

Melisa discussed this commercialization in much larger detail later in the discussion. She maintains that hip-hop, and therefore rap music, is still very political on a global level. In the United States, rap is no longer the tool for social change it once was. I think a big reason for this is goes beyond the mass marketing of rap as a consumer product. Rap in its “good� form, and to some extent in its “bad� form, does not reach the demographic that the polarizing music of artists such as The Beatles, Bob Dylan, and others in the past. Because rap music represents a domestic, territorial, and perhaps a socially biased audience, it fails to spring the masses into action in the same ways music used to.

Posted by char0018 at 5:55 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

“Boyz N the Hood: A Colonial Analysis� by James Nadell attempts to describe the ways black culture of the early nineties, depicted in Boyz N the Hood, was affected by the exploitation of Euro-American capitalism on the African race, the conflicts between blacks and whites during the “Black liberation struggle� (447), and the drug trade conspiracy facing black culture. Nadell starts off the article describing the ways black culture of the Boyz N the Hood generation was affected by the slave trade when Africans were first brought over to the Americas. The slaves were exploited for capital gain by the whites and this position of power that the whites held affected the black race psychologically because as time progressed, even though the slaves were eventually freed the power was still unofficially held by the whites. This was seen in Boyz N the Hood by the separation between the blacks in Tre’s neighborhood and the predominantly white controlled police force. The exception being the self-hating black police officer, which Nadell says his “hatred of and violence against the very Black people he is supposed to serve and protect is primarily an expression of his own internal conflict with his blackness� (461). I agree with this as Nadell uses it as an example of the black on black conflicts shown in the movie. This analysis is very relevant to the material in other readings and the discussions talked about in class. The black on black struggle was a big part of the Rodney King riots in LA because many of the businesses destroyed in the riots were those of black ownership.

Nadell then describes how the drug trade in the African American communities was linked with a conspiracy theory, which was universal to the “hood�. Nadell connects this to the scene where Furious tells Tre about how blacks only participate in the buying and selling, but the transportation of the drugs to America is completely independent of the black community. This part of the article is less relevant to the material talked about in class because the theme is really only mentioned once in the movie. The topic is important, but I think Nadell did not really connect the topic well to the film because after watching Boyz N the Hood I did not see the drug trade portrayed as a large theme.

The next topic of the article is the colonial origins of racist terms used in the movie, and how they evolved into the derogatory names seen today. The analysis here is good, and it is relevant to the film and some of the class materials. The most important part of this being the hateful words used in the movie towards women. Doughboy continually calls the female characters “hos� and “bitches�. These words were negating what the women’s movement of the 1960s and 70s had tried to prevent, so the use of them by the black characters perpetuates the thought that the black community was alienating itself from the rest of the country. This is somewhat relevant to the class topic of isolation in Los Angeles of the black community. With the lack of transportation, the inner city neighborhoods were not exposed to things outside their own community. Overall, Nadell’s colonial analysis of Boyz N the Hood was partially relevant to class topics by the mentioning of black on black violence, the degradation of women, and the colonial origins of both of these.

Posted by kuni0018 at 5:46 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The panel discussion this week in class was actually really interesting. One of the questions that I had for this week was whether or not I believed that there has been a huge increase in hip-hop criticism? I do believe that there has been an increase in criticism when it comes to hip-hop. I feel that a big reason for the criticism is because a lot of people don't know where the artists are coming from and getting their ideas from. They do not live the life of a lot of hip-hop artists, so I feel that for some people it is hard to connect with the music and in turn they criticize it.
The next question that was brought to my attention was do I feel that hip-hop is bigger than rap music and that hip-hop is one of the biggest art movements in the last couple decades. I do feel that hip-hop is bigger than rap music and it might just be because I enjoy hip-hop over rap. It is a personal preference and I enjoying listening to hip-hop a lot more. I do not know if I would go to say that hip-hop is one of the biggest art movements in the last couple decades. I do believe that it is a pretty big movement and it is popular to certain people. Obviously some people enjoy it more than others and those people who do enjoy it would probably say that it is a huge art movement.

Posted by pelt0071 at 5:29 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Hip-hop has helped introduce the everyday struggles in which a certain person goes through when living in a place where poverty, unemployment, and police brutality is common. Having pride in the city, or neighborhood where a person may grow up in, influences their music. When a person is experiencing an unequal justice, they write about it. These feelings are interpreted into songs and that is how the struggle is addressed and displayed in the media. For example, in the song, "Welcome to Compton" by N.W.A. starts off with Ice Cube saying, "When something happens in Compton, nothin' happens, it's just anotha' n*gga dead." How can one person believe that seeing person dead is an everyday ordeal? Murray Forman states "Rap music takes the city and its multiple spaces as the foundation of its cultural production. In the music and lyrics, the city is an audible presence, explicitly and digitally sampled in the reproduction of the aural textures of the urban environment." I was born in Flint, Michigan, which is rated the third most dangerous city in the United States. There is a rap group (or rap poets) name Dayton's Family, and they are all about having pride in Flint. The hardship a family goes through is expressed in their songs such as "FlintTown" and "Welcome to Flint." The residents in any city can connect to the songs portraying their city. This genre of music has helped the black community grow stronger, thanks to the media. The truth an artists writes about appeals to everyone living in the current state of either experiencing unemployment, poverty, etc. Artists such as Atmosphere represents Minneapolis, Minnesota, Jay-Z with New York City, New York, and Kanye West making songs about Chicago, Illinois. The connection a person feels, such as myself, when hearing a song about their city is strong. The lyrics in songs is not always negative, most are rather pride-related, such as Atmosphere's song, "Say Shhh..." which is about the great city of Minneapolis and its beauty. Hip-hop evolved into a voice where anyone can speak their mind and influence many.

Posted by Anthony Zerka at 5:23 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The panel this week was far more interesting than I had expected. However the biggest question that arises after listening to them was how one can say they are an expert of a subject that really isn't established yet in major centers of learning. If there is no one to teach, how are you the expert? Aside from that I thought that they had a good grasp on what they were discussing and Alex had some very opinionated views on the subject that he was very able to back up. They also answered a question I always thought about that is the radio broadcast of "popular" songs. The method they use cannot allow for real music to catch on and only lets the large labels monopolize the radio. What also intrigued me was the discussion on how one may define hip hop. Melissa's explanation was far more intricate than what I had believed hip hop was defined as. I do agree with Alex in his opinion that rap is the first real export of the black community. From that has stemmed so many more things that could be considered constructive additions to society and what they have contributed has many more faces than just music.

Posted by leex2727 at 5:09 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In Foucaults Turntble Hip-Hop Scholars Bumrush the Academy Hua Hsu brings up a very good question concerning hip-hop culture in today’s society. For this weeks hip-hop discussion panel the question I was most eager to have answered was “How has hip-hop's political culture been influenced by its ever-present performances of materialism or violence? (Hsu, 2003)�. In today’s society the views of hip-hop by mainstream culture is that hip-hop focuses on materialism and gang violence. However after listen to the panel experts my perceptions changed about hip-hop in today’s society.
Professor Pate’s explanation between "bad" rap becoming popular in today’s society along with introducing students to black traditions and the historical successes of hip-hop culture was very intriguing and informative. It gave me a whole new perspective of hip-hop culture that there are African Americans out there who do not like T.I and Nelly but do believe that the hip-hop culture is important.
Secondly Riviere’s explanation about way bad hip-hop music gets played on the radio was very informative. Someone asked if the popular hip-hop music of today’s era was an example of artists just "giving the people what they want" or if the artist creates it and pushes it upon the people. Riviere’s explanation of how big record companies have departments and people specifically positioned to "jam the stations" was intriguing because most people will have no idea that’s what really happens. She went on talking about how really hip-hop outside of the United States is very influential tool for challenging mainstream cultures where as the United States is controlled by big corporate companies.

Posted by towar003 at 3:23 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

2) In the article “Prophets of Rage: Rap Music, Politics of Black Cultural Expression,� Rose states that “Confining the discussion of politics in rap to lyrical analysis addresses only the most explicit dimension of the politics of contemporary black cultural expression.� (124)
• Do you agree that rap music has as strong of an influence on politics as many critics seem to believe?
• Are the lyrics of rap and hip-hop less influential than the culture associated with it?
• Should rap music strictly be associated with black culture? What about the influence it now has on white suburbia? What about rappers such as Eminem?

Rap music most definitely has a strong influence on politics. It is not a direct influence, but is caused by a cultural shift that spawns from rap music. It is also crucial to understand what kind of rap music has the ability to change politics and culture. As so vehemently stated by the panelists, it is not the mainstream "Soulja Boy" songs that speak to a culture and have a political influence. The lyrics, lifestyle and representation from these songs only serve to hurt the African American culture and make it appear almost cheesy and extremely sexual and violent to the outside observer. Musicians have the ability to influence culture, culture has the ability to influence people, and people have the ability to influence politics, so it all flows downhill. As to how musicians do this, the lyrics have a huge influence, however, even when the lyrics are incomprehensible, the culture and behavior of those musicians rubs off onto the listeners. The same influence that singers of the '60s had on teenage America is now the influence that rappers are having on African American culture in as well as politically and throughout America as a whole. Rap music is not just intended to influence African American culture. The panelist on Wednesday told a story of how a white girl in one of his classes was going to a rap concert, and a black girl in his class blew up on her and got all upset the white girl was listening to "her music" while she herself couldn't afford to go." In response to this the panelist asked her: "Would you rather she turn into a racist, despised all black music and culture, verbally abused African American culture and emulated everything that African Americans have been trying to change, or would you prefer that she embrace rap and black culture?" The answer is obvious, and shows how rap music is not and should be intended solely for black culture. True rappers are like poets, conveying their message to American culture and trying to make a difference for the better.

Posted by marsh401 at 3:14 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This week in class, we had a discussion panel on the topic of Rap and Hip-hop. The discussion panelists were Melissa and Alexs. One question that intrigued a great answer was, "What's the difference between Rap and Hip-hop?" I thought it was very interesting that Rap is seen as a part of Hip-hop. I never knew that, let alone thought about the possibility. I thought it was very interesting because I enjoy the Hip-hop style, but not Rap. But then Alexs brought up an excellent point that what we hear today on KDWB, B96, etc. is not real rap. That is what he calls, "bad rap." The "good" rap does not come from rappers. It comes from musical poets. Maybe I judged rap too quickly, since I haven't heard the "good" stuff yet. But that brings up another good point/question from the discussion. Why haven't we heard the "good" stuff on the radio? Is it just not popular? It's not that it's not popular, it's just that the radio airtime has been overtaken by record companies with lots of money who buy the airtime, guaranteeing that their music will be played on the radio. Unfortunately, this means the "good" stuff might not be heard on the highly publicized radio stations. It will have to be more of local effort to make names of the good musical poets, spreading their names by word of mouth.

Posted by woehl007 at 2:54 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The discussion panel was really entertaining. One of the most interesting ideas I took out of the discussion was when Alexs answered the question regarding the difference between hip hop and rap. He responds by saying, "hip hop is a culture and rap is the literature of that culture". This made it easier for me to image how hip hop and rap relate to each other. I, personally, am not a big fan of rap. But the rap I don't like is what Alexs labels, "bad rap" from such artists as T.I. or Nelly and the "good rap" doesn't come from these rappers, but from "musical poets" such as Mos Def. Also what I found interesting is the idea that hip hop brings people together. Whether it be white, black, latino, asian, etc.... hip hop has the capacity to bring different cultures together. Everyone listens to it or has heard it and can talk to each other or relate to each other on some level regarding it. That's the good thing about hip hop, different cultures, different backgrounds, can enjoy the same type of music.

Posted by ruff0046 at 2:49 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In this weeks discussion panel the Melissa and Alex discussed hip-hop music and how it relates to the culture of America. They both come from unique backgrounds and have different perspectives on what hip-hop is and how it is an expressing of feelings and surroundings. One of the most interesting parts of the debate, I thought, was when Alex was talking about how hip-hop is an expression of the culture of the person, their life and where they live. He refers to musical artists as poets, and they are writing poetry, which tells the story of their lives. I thought this was an interesting twist, because many people don’t see rap and hip-hop as a form of art like they do poetry.
Aside from the usual talk about what is hip-hop and what defines hip-hop, the two talked about if they felt hip-hop culture and music should be taught in schools. In some of the readings for the week they talk about how there are college professors who teach hip-hop, but don’t know anything about the subject. Some also asked the question, should hip-hop be taught in schools. I thought Melissa had a very interesting answer to this questing. She said in her class hip-hop is not necessarily taught in school, but instead hip-hop is the tool used to take a journey through history and learn about different cultures across the globe. Alex also had a good response, he talked about how hip-hop is such a young style of music that it is difficult to teach in schools because it’s only been around for about fifty years. Because hip-hop is a relatively new music style it is difficult to pin down what exactly it is, and what qualifies as hip-hop, and what should be done about it, if anything.
I thought this debate was very well done. All sides of hip hop were shown in a positive light and it helped give me a better understanding of the culture involved in hip-hop and how important it is to the culture of the united states.

Posted by elmxx014 at 2:15 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I found the Hip-Hip panel to extremely interesting and entertaining. I was surprised to learn that rap is a subset of hip-hop, rather than a new form altogether. I had always assumed that hip-hop was rap but with more "traditional" musical conventions than rap. However, hip-hop is a kind of sub-culture, complete with its own elements and various artistic styles such as dance, graffiti, music, and poetry. I also found it reassuring that there still exists hip-hop that makes social commentary on issues such as poverty, race, and drugs. The commercialization and involvement in capital has unfortunately kept much of this kind of music underground. Instead, we are innundated with hip-hop that revolves around sex, money, and the objectification of women. This crap rap does not really represent the original spirit of community togetherness that rap once did, nor does it attempt to affect social change. What I hope will happen in the future is that another group like Public Enemy will become popular in the mainstream, and thus bring important issues to the forefront of American consciousness. As whites are the largest consumers of hip-hop in the country, hearing socially conscious music will bring these problems to the ears of all those who need to hear it.

Posted by Melissa Green at 2:09 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Well, to put it bluntly, my discussion questions turned out to be totally unrelated to what the panel talked about. I was assuming it was going to be more related to the course as opposed to the hip-hop discussion that it turned out to be. I have next to zero knowledge on the subject, so this discussion was hard for me to follow. My only 'rap' knowledge is whatever song happens to be the flavor of the month, like the Soulja Boy, or Lil Jon, or whatever song is getting played at every sporting event at the time. So, I'm just going to throw the 'answering of my question' out the window because, let's face it, it's way off base.
So, a lot of what was discussed helped me realize what hip hop actually was, and that it's different than rap. Alexs was especially helpful when he discussed the 4 aspects of hip hip, and put in more of a lifestyle context than a form of music. I knew that most the rap put out nowadays is meaningless and only there to make a quick buck. However, before the I couldn't name one of the real rap artists that Alexs mentioned, such as Lupe Fiasco. I've since listened to a little bit of Lupe's songs, and although I'm clearly no expert on the topic, I can hear a difference in the lyrics and tones. There's no gimmick dance attached to his work, and certainly no sweat drop down his balls. It seems to be a more educated style.
So, while this forum helped my get a very basic understanding of rap and hip hop, it left some questions unanswered. I was hoping that Alexs and Melisa would talk about the effect of the mainstream rap on black culture, and whether or not they thought it was a good or a bad thing. From my opinion, it certainly helps to act as a unifier, but at the same time, with the revolving door of rap 'stars', it seems to be watering down rap as an art form.

Jeff Batts

Posted by batts002 at 1:59 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In the interview article about his book, Total Chaos: The Art and Aesthetics of Hip-Hop, Jeff Chang responds to particular questions about Hip-Hop in relation to his book. Chang states that, “hip-hop art is way bigger than rap music, and in fact it is probably one of the biggest arts movements of the last few decades� (1). Before the discussion panel last week, I was having difficulty deciphering the distinctions between rap and hip-hop. It was not until Melissa explained the intricacies of the four basic elements of hip-hop that everything began making sense. She explained that hip-hop is a form of culture that is oppositional to the dominant mainstream, which is portrayed by utilizing the elements of DJing (turntables), graffiti (art/tagging), break dancing, and MCing (rapping). At this point, it became clear that the lyricism of hip-hop (rap) was merely one of the principal elements of hip-hop.

Chang also discusses the explosion and proliferation of hip-hop arts as a global art form. This was another concept that confused me at first because I did not understand why people around the world, of different cultures and nationalities, speaking different languages, would care about hip-hop. This was addressed in the discussion panel in that hip-hop is multicultural and brings the people of the world together. It was interesting to think of hip-hop as being “multicultural� because it does not really have a “color�. In other words, it doesn’t matter if you are Black, White, Indian, Chinese or Iranian – as long as you are oppressed and are in some form marginalized from a dominant mainstream, hip-hop will be there as your form of “oppositional culture�. Just as Theresa Martinez explains, “oppositional culture� is a term that describes subcultures that consciously reject mainstream values and norms (Martinez, 265) regardless of what cultural category one might fall into.

-Hasti Fashandi

Posted by fash0016 at 12:19 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

My question for the discussion panel talked about the idea of hip-hop being taught in colleges and University’s across the nation. I asked the panel what they thought of ‘hip-hop experts’ teaching college students and how they could call themselves ‘experts’ since there is no such degree in hip-hop.
In defining hip-hop and rap the panel discussed hip-hop as being a culture and rap being a form of expression. They saw hip-hop being defined by four major areas of life/culture, lyricist (rap), breakdancing, turntable (DJ), and graffiti.
In discussing hip-hop in college both of the panelists enjoyed what they teach, here at the University, but they believe that there needs to be more talk about literature and ‘rap poets’. They would also like to find new ways to talk about hip-hop. They discussed combining practicing the art, theory and academia.
Credibility is also very important; the panel believes that whoever decides to teach hip-hop or the culture surrounding it. The panelists have extensive background in hip-hop, literature and rap.

Posted by hanl0083 at 11:53 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I was very excited to attend the panel, being myself a fan of many local hip-hop artists; I enjoyed it and I found the panel interesting, but I would agree with Jasmine in that, “The panelists gave long answers to the questions, and sometimes danced around the original question rather than giving a direct answer� (Thoughts). For example, the question was raised about the role of hip-hop’s increasing prevalence in American academic institutions today compared to just a few years ago. This was one question I asked for our panel question assignment. I felt that panelists did a good job on elaborating on the history of the culture of hip-hop and how academia “incorporates theory into learning about the culture,� however, I felt that there could have been more context and clear elaboration on how hip-hop has contributed to the academic landscape and vice-versa, how academia has contributed to hip-hop, and why is it important for students to be exposed to and have a better understanding of hip-hop culture (Rivière).
In Reyhan Harmanci’s article, Academic Hip-Hop? Yes, Yes Y’All, he quotes Adam Mansbach and his elaboration on the importance of hip-hop as a major academic study: “Hip-hop forces those in the academy to examine a people’s culture, so to study it, you have to be among people. You can’t look at scholarship in the typical way� (4). Mansbach explains that the study of hip-hop has contributed to academia in that it is now an elemental aspect of modern American anthropology; a culture in which we can observe and learn from face-to-face, a culture in which is prevalent in nearly all areas of our country today. In almost no other discipline is this true.

Posted by riva0067 at 11:50 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Back in the days when I was a teenager
Before I had status and before I had a pager
You could find the Abstract listening to hip hop
My pops used to say, it reminded him of be-bop
I said, well daddy don’t you know that things go in cycles
The way that Bobby Brown is just ampin like Michael
--A Tribe Called Quest “Excursions�, from The Low End Theory (1991)

This week’s hip-hop forum was a welcome diversion to the usual weekly film study. A much appreciated shout out to Alexs, Eddie and Melisa for contributing their thoughts and time to helping us put this vibrant movement into the socio-political context we have been working in this semester.

Just as with any other academic conversation, this one began with setting boundaries. Hip-hop was defined as a culture of opposition to the mainstream, one that embodies more elements than simply the rap music to which most in would like to confine it. That being said, however, does not make discussion of rap music less important. Which brings me to the question I would like to focus on.

Tricia Rose’s chapter Prophets of Rage: Rap Music and the Politics of Black Cultural Expression discusses the concept of rap music as a form of expression in “a long history of black cultural subversion and the social critique in music and performance (99)�, one that serves as a way to give a voice to those experiences that are ignored or marginalized by the dominant public transcript.

• With the obvious parallels between the jazz cultures of the past and the hip-hop culture of today makes this is a
valid assertion? Or do you believe that the hip-hop movement represents a break with previous generations and is a unique phenomenon?

While discussing the poetic/literary value of rap music and the distinctions between “good� and “bad� art found in the movement, Alexs made a curious assertion that it “is probably the first true artistic export of the African American culture�. This idea runs counter to the argument presented by Tricia Rose and I am not sure I agree either.

Making this statement requires us to ignore the past. Does this dismiss or deny the importance of historical African American artistic movements? For example, in parallel with the Great Migration of blacks into the industrialized Northern cities during the 1920s came the Harlem Renaissance. There was an explosion of literary and musical contributions made by black jazz artists, poets, and authors like Louis Armstrong, Billie Holiday, Zora Neale Hurston, and Langston Hughes. There was also another such movement a generation later by artists such as John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Ralph Ellison, and Richard Wright.

I find it extremely hard to speak to the present without understanding and acknowledging the past. Maybe there is more to it than that for Alexs to make the claim he did. I would really like to find out more if that is the case.

Posted by skog0031 at 11:37 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The individualism of the genre of hip hop is fundamental to its sustainability. By not directly laying out the origins of hip hop it has allowed itself to be interpreted in a multitude of different ways. Every person moved by the art form can take what they want from it make mold it to make the most out of it for themselves. This allowed it to flourish and spread, because it could be used by any one for personal means. Hip Hop music is often cited by the panel as a form of poetry, and when looking at it through this lens one can see how it has been able to maintain its values as if moved from one cultural group to the next. If this art is thought of as poetry it can draw upon the historical parallels of the two and use it them as justification as to why the form deserves the utmost respect when being considered by the individual crafting the message or the even from the listener. By setting the by attaching a separate set of fundamentals of one art form to another that has purposefully chosen not to establish their own you are ensuring that it has some sort of rational meaning to exist and that is should be carefully considered by other age and race groups as apposed to being cast off as something for a specific group.

Posted by swanx058 at 10:28 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Maria Hodgson argues that Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) rules and regulations to films can be viewed as a form of censorship to film-makers as well as to producers. She presented good arguments in favor to this system but also presents the fall backs to MPAA decisions. The article itself tells us about films that are able to bypass the rating system because it is not mandatory. It also tells us about Hugh Heffner’s change of his movie from X to R in order to sell more copies. The article finally tells us about the system of G rating to X rating and what they mean. Not only how they are reflected in the MPAA but how society views the movies as either ways of advertising or ways of enticing the viewers.

One of the points the articles addresses is that with out the such organizations like the MPAA a dark curtain would fall on the creativity in cinema. So we are supposed to believe that an organization who, she said it herself, that is not mandatory to get your movies passed thru did not exist that people would have different opinions on their film making abilities? I mean I can see why the author tells us about films like Hugh Heffner’s film and why he needed to change the rating, but to go to the extreme and label film-makers as people affected by this rating as a censorship is a little extreme. I am not saying that film-makers should go crazy and start placing anything on the screen, I am just saying that creativity is not at compromise from this rating system. This article is a little dated because some of the rules have changed for films and what can be rated a PG compared to a R is very different. The author does offer insight into other ratings, such as MA and PG-13 that didn’t exist at the time but do exist today. All in all the authors arguments are supportive but coming to the conclusion that creativity is affected is not something that is at compromise, especially in today’s society with the newest rating system impositions.

Posted by remy0004 at 9:20 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Music has much to say about society as well as these two presenters for our guest lecture have shown. The one man who teaches African American studies at the university and has published seven books tells us that rap music is not really a type of music but a way of life. While the other women who teaches a class hear and at Hamline tells us that rap music is divided into 4 separate parts. All together though the best part of their answer to what this music actually is was by their comments that music is a mainstream that brings people from all over. Whether it is during times of war or times of happiness there is always music. This makes so much sense and I have never really thought about it that way. I go to church and they play music, I go to see a movie and there is music in it, I go to a night club and there is music. No matter where I go, there is almost always music somewhere being involved. So it is more than a passive mainstream from what Jeff Chang said, it is an active mainstream for which people can access by going to a crowd of people.

A second good point that was outlined in this discussion was the notion of “picking a spot.� In other words musicians just pick a spot and than know something about that spot to write a song about it. There is nearly music about every spot that someone has been and this is a good example of how music travels with you and how it just bring people together it brings people to places they have never been. All in all, this discussion was a great idea that opened many new doors for me that I have never really thought about music. On top of all that I am going to look further in to classes taught by both of these professors, because they were very interesting.

Posted by remy0004 at 7:38 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Prior to reading the assigned literature of the week and the panel discussion, I had thought of hip-hop and rap as two separate genres of music with little social implications. To me, rap and hip-hop were mainly music of the black community, music that characters such as Doughboy from Boyz ‘N the Hood would have enjoyed. With the readings and seeing Milena Riviere and Alexs Pate, however, my opinions on the topic were highly modified.
Throughout this course, we have been focusing on countercultures and groups such as the hippies and others who have defied culture norms. As hip-hop itself represents counterculture ideas of going against the mainstream, I now see the relevance of this topic in relation to this course. I thought it was fascinating when Alexs Pates spoke of hip-hop as being a culture in and of itself. Then, Milena Riviere went on to talk about how rap and graffiti are elements of hip-hop instead of separate identities. Riviere discussed how rap is the literature of the culture as it represents the words and thoughts to listeners. Thinking of graffiti, the panel discussion opened my eyes to the idea behind this artform. Initially, I had thought graffiti to simply be a form of vandalism that held artistic value when painted on a proper surface. Now, I realize that it is a sign of possession of a territory within the hip-hop culture.
Another eye-opening element that was revealed on the panel was women’s place in the culture of hip-hop. Now, as I reflect on this, I recognize the lack of female hip-hop artists commonly seen in American society today. The few female artists that have managed to make names for themselves have done so by fitting in to a stereotype of who the mainstream wishes them to be. One of the best examples of this is Beyonce who has molded into the goddess of beauty and sensuality due to the effects of the mainstream expectations. This in and of itself is defiant of hip-hop in its ideals of going against the mainstream and popular culture. Instead, it sends the message that males are able to do anything they want, while females are forced to stay within specified lines of behavior.

Posted by basse044 at 12:14 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I found the panel to be interesting, but at the same time, somewhat lackluster. The panelists gave long answers to the questions and sometimes, danced around the original question rather than giving a direct answer. I understand schedule conflicts and such, however, I would have enjoyed (1) more panelists (2) panelists from varied backgrounds, possibly an actual rapper as to illustrate opinions from both theory and practice.

I was quite surprised by fellow classmate, Sarah Osborne's comment in her blog response that she expected the panelists to be more "thuggish". What does that even mean? Do you automatically only associate hip hop with "thugs"? However, that is an issue for a different panel, i guess.

There were a few points that resonated with me throughout the panel:

I was quite pleased with the way Pate handled the question about the validity of academics in hip hop. I had never really thought of that aspect. Critics and scholars serve as "protectors" of the art form. There to record its history as well as constantly challenge it. They are objective observers who support the art but are there to ask the tough questions about it. They are still participants of the culture, just through the form of scholarship.

Secondly, the explanation that Melisa Riviere gave about the way music gets played on the radio was very informative to me. One of my questions was in reference to Tricia Rose's discussion about rap as "apolitical party music" versus it being more political, "complex and direct". (Rose 276). I was wondering if the mainstream music of today was an example of artists just "giving the people what they want" or if the artist create it and push it upon the people. Her explanation of how big record companies have departments and people specifically positioned to "jam the stations" was intriguing and the average person may not know that. It seems as if radio is a democracy, people call in and request songs, etc but really the gatekeeping aspect of the system is in full effect. In a capitalist system, it makes sense, money makes the world go round. However, as far as integrity, conglomerates/big controlling companies help make it so that that is not a core value within the music business. thus, in the end, radio is only another vehicle that is being used to drive hip hop into the ground.

Posted by Jasmine Omorogbe at 8:28 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This week, instead of watching a movie we participated in a “Hip Hop Culture and American Politics: Past and Present� discussion where there were two hip hop scholars present. One of the first questions that was discussed was what the real difference between Hip Hop and rap was. The hip hop scholars responded to this by saying that hip hop is made up of many elements which include rap and other things like break dancing, productions, fashion, etc. Hip hop is a culture that is against the dominant mainstream, and rap is the literature of this culture. Rap music has always been about representing a certain area within a state, city, or where ever that is about the people that live there.

Another main questions that was discussed was the presence of women in hip hop, and why there didn’t seem to be as many of them as men. One of the Hip Hop scholars responded to this by saying first that there have been women involved in hip hop since the beginning, and in fact the “big bang� that started hip hop was done by a woman. Masculinity in hip hop is so pervasive that it drowns out women and as a result of this many women that begin their hip hop careers start off with a sort of masculine identity, to help them, in a sense, fit in and become one of the guys.

Posted by clay0115 at 4:28 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Christina Johnston

Hip hop Forum

I really, really enjoyed going to this forum and left with a new understanding of the reasons why we study popular culture—specifically hip hop and rap and the way that they identify their individual artists. They answered a myriad of questions, but a few that stuck out in my mind were the ones regarding the implications of the lack of a message in modern hip hop and mainstream rap songs. They explained that the lack of political message in the mainstream is in and of itself a reflection of a lack of political influence in society. I found this to be really interesting because often mainstream rap gets written off as just for the teenyboppers and not worth analyzing; they argued that you can analyze the reasons behind its lack of message and what that means to society.

I was also unaware that graffiti’s importance lies primarily in its location, and not its content. I always thought that graffiti was more of an artistic expression instead of a “territorial tattoo� if you will. When I look at graffiti, I think of it appearance, and not the meaning behind it and the geographical population that it represents. It opens up the possibilities for analyzing the urban space and how “urban territories� are determined. They also mentioned that the reasons behind graffiti in urban areas as opposed to suburbia are worthy of study. Why do they feel the need to identify their space with graffiti? Does it mean that they don’t feel like they have a place in society? These are just a few of the new ways of looking at hip hop that I got from this forum, in addition to rap as literature, and the importance of professors to shepherd rap analysis in academia, the importance of theory and practice in tandem, and that the cost of exploitation by mainstream is overcome by the unifying effect of hip hop culture.

Posted by joh03704 at 10:11 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The discussion of the role of academics in hip hop and the divide between theory and practice were very enlightening to me because I am writing my honors thesis on the struggle between theory and practice for Cultural Studies. Professor Pate's argument that he wants to be the academic who is separate from the hip hop world was compelling to me. The importance of having people who are separate, external forces who "legitimize" the lifestyle is an area that is probably overlooked for many traditional theorists who only interact with other academics.

The discussion of how popularizing rap has affected its abilities to act a radical protest approaches the answer to my question about how a popular form of entertainment can function as a critique of dominant hegemonies. The struggle between "bad" rap becoming popular but introducing students to black tradtions and the historical successes of groups in promoting a message demonstrates that it has the abilities to subvert hegemonies. Important moments in hip hop history have centered on political activism, like "The Revolution will Not Be Televised" and Public Enemy. So it definitely has the ability to be a political mode of communication and the problem is that the dominant means have seized the same mode of communication, but the ability to use it in subversive ways is still potential.

Posted by vieir013 at 9:47 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Reyhan Harmanci author of, "Academic Hip-Hop? Yes, Yes, Y'all" states that academic hip-hop is in its third decade," . . . And it has become one of the most explosive subjects to hit academia in decades" (1). During our Wednesday night discussion, panelists Alexs Pate (professor in the Department of African and African American Studies) and Milena Riviere (professor in the Department of Anthropology) shed some light on the many aspects of hip-hop, one of them being, "what is hip-hop?"

Panelist Alexs Pate stated that hip-hop is a culture and an opposition to the mainstream while Milena Riviere stated that hip-hop consists of four elements, break dance, turntables, rap, and lyricism. Alexs stressed that there is a large difference in the mainstream "rap" we hear on the radio compared to the authentic "hip-hop" of Public Enemy for example (i.e. good vs. evil).

The panelist briefly touched on one of my questions which was, "What role do the "various social movements of the 60s and 70s" play in regards to the current academic hip-hop explosion? Both panelists agreed that the more a group is repressed, the more likely it is that they will respond to social inequalities through arts and culture, specifically music where their once smothered voices could be heard.

Finally, no matter how one views hip-hop, it is clear that "hip-hop brings the people together" which indisputably benefits societies worlwide (Pate).

Posted by dollx040 at 11:01 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The discussion of rap and hip-hop with panelists Alexs Pane and Melisa Riviere was very intriguing yet at the same time left me quite perplexed. I feel as though the topic of rap and hip-hop is so broad, consisting of many elements, concepts, and ideas that intertwine with one another based on a person’s perception, history, background, etc, that it’s quite hard to grasp a full concept of this powerful form of resistance. However, this is most likely due to the notion that scholarship on rap and hip-hop is rather young, and according to Pane, “a lot of people don’t understand the true political, social, and economical characteristics of it.� With that said, one major aspect that I gained from the panel as well as Tricia Rose is the importance of territory and hip-hop and understanding how to two relate to one another.

Tricia Rose argues that, “Cultural expressions of discontent are no longer protected by the insulated social sites that have historically encouraged the refinement of resistive transcripts� (Rose, p.101). Due to the nature of many obscene lyrics, rap and hip-hop have received much scrutiny. However, as Pane and Riviere discussed, through means of territory and physical space, artists have been able to freely express themselves through the global scene and the challenging of physical space. Rap and hip-hop have become a literature, or a language that connects people with their “click or crew� by challenging the physical space (Pane).

Posted by eisl0005 at 8:12 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The one point that stood out the most for me during the panel discussion was that all the money for the hip hop world comes primarily from the suburbs because their consumption habits are more easily monitored for market trends. I think this fact alone has left a devastating effect on hip hop music as a whole because its dictated what direction its taken, ie, the drinking, partying, misogyny direction that appeals so much to middle class white people. Now that it's grown to be a multi-million dollar industry it has become difficult to change but we at least have a saving grace on the internet. Not only does the internet provide a much larger audience for musicians, but any of us can combat the music industry by doing the right thing: stealing music off the internet thus robbing the giant record companies of their money and loosening their grip on the music world, as well as eliminating the need for the radio's restrictive play list.
I think hip hop is still a very powerful voice in the counter culture movement because of its origin in poetry and free expression. However, I am skeptical that it will remain counter cultural forever, and our generations children will no doubt come up with a new genre of music to battle whatever evil we release upon the world.

Posted by kupp0012 at 2:27 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I appreciated hearing from two lecturers who have studied this subject of rap and hip hop and both teach it. Alexs had a strong view point and made it clear that the music that is on the radio is “crap� rap. I agree with this for the reason that we ended this lecture on. Women in this industry. First there was the idea the Melissa was talking about in that if a woman messes up even one time she is no good, but a man is just working out the kinks and getting better. The idea of women in this industry making it big is few and far between. While a few have made it big, they have made it playing their roles. As said in lecture there is Beyonce playing the southern belle or Lil Kim playing to the gangster perspective. These women are welcome in the field but only in their particular roles. Then looking at the women and how they are portrayed in the lyrics is disgraceful. When listening to this music and not knowing what the slang terms mean, it is the beat that gets people to listening. I did not know what superman was before looking it up, and I would agree with Alexs replacement saying that it is disgusting and awful way to be portrayed. In most of the music that is played on the radio, it is disrespectful to women, portraying them as something that is there to satisfy men no matter what.
Looking at these lyrics in this non-cookie cutter rap I think opens up a different door. This is where it deals more with environment and what is around them. I do believe that this environment that they live in effects everyone that they are talking to. I do think that these lyrics mean more to people that are living through it, or can relate. So someone listening to Tupac would understand more being on the west coast then someone who is listening to Eminem. This I think ties into Melissa’s point about the graffiti when she was talking about Miami shine, etc.
With this environmental tie and the coming together through the music, hip hop is bringing people together. This, a young term, is spreading international and bringing people together all over the world. The way Alexs was talking about how these people were bonding over this music, I did get the sense that this was his way of fixing world peace. While I know everyone understands it is not that simple, he had this strong belief that this music and attitude is bringing people together in their own ways, even if it is just regionally.

Posted by lile0005 at 2:04 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Throughout history there have been many forms of cultural oppression, creating a dire need for a response. Social groups, such as minorities and European immigrants focused on their own cultures ideologies, such as music, spirituality, and their families, in order to fight off forms of oppression, discrimination, and racism. Although a wide assortment of cultural ideologies have formed a meaning of resistance against oppression, political and gangsta rap music artists were successfully able to urge Americans to pay less attention to the cause of rioting, and instead, focus on institutional discrimination, poverty, and governmental negligence. In the article “Popular Culture as Oppositional Culture: Rap as Resistance,� Theresa Martinez suggests that “political and gangsta rap music artists of the late 1980s and early 1990s were utilizing a bold form of oppositional culture in protest and condemnation of perceived racial formation, institutional discrimination, and urban decay in the inner cities� (Martinez, 266). Through the systematic domination of non-European people, European immigrants struggled against the social, economic, and political forms of discrimination, which ultimately led to the formation of institutional discrimination.

By means of controversial rap and hip-hop, musical artists were able to draw attention to resistance of an oppositional culture through the cultural expression of racial development and inner-city decay. The inspirational, yet sometimes contentious lyrics of rap and hip-hop music brought about an awareness of the nation’s social problems, as well as producing forms of riots that left society in shock. A main point brought about by author Tricia Rose is the controversy of public space, or territory, and the challenging fight of what can be said and within which physical space. For instance, Rose describes rap music as being a “hidden transcript,� in which the lyrics challenge inequalities (Rose, p.100). Rose continues on by arguing that, “Cultural expressions of discontent are no longer protected by the insulated social sites that have historically encouraged the refinement of resistive transcripts� (Rose, p.101). Rap and hip-hop music receive much scrutiny because they challenge dominate social norms/ideologies, yet at the same time, they are readily available to audiences all around the world. Although hip-hop and rap are seen as being controversial, especially in terms of territorial matters, the mere fact that they are able to promote global equality through the sounds and messages of their lyrics is phenomenal. Through creative expressions and voices, rap and hip-hop are able to create a sense of power and belonging through an excursion into different cultures.

Posted by eisl0005 at 11:36 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Throughout history there have been many forms of cultural oppression, creating a dire need for a response. Social groups, such as minorities and European immigrants focused on their own cultures ideologies, such as music, spirituality, and their families, in order to fight off forms of oppression, discrimination, and racism. Although a wide assortment of cultural ideologies have formed a meaning of resistance against oppression, political and gangsta rap music artists were successfully able to urge Americans to pay less attention to the cause of rioting, and instead, focus on institutional discrimination, poverty, and governmental negligence. In the article “Popular Culture as Oppositional Culture: Rap as Resistance,� Theresa Martinez suggests that “political and gangsta rap music artists of the late 1980s and early 1990s were utilizing a bold form of oppositional culture in protest and condemnation of perceived racial formation, institutional discrimination, and urban decay in the inner cities� (Martinez, 266). Through the systematic domination of non-European people, European immigrants struggled against the social, economic, and political forms of discrimination, which ultimately led to the formation of institutional discrimination.

By means of controversial rap and hip-hop, musical artists were able to draw attention to resistance of an oppositional culture through the cultural expression of racial development and inner-city decay. The inspirational, yet sometimes contentious lyrics of rap and hip-hop music brought about an awareness of the nation’s social problems, as well as producing forms of riots that left society in shock. A main point brought about by author Tricia Rose is the controversy of public space, or territory, and the challenging fight of what can be said and within which physical space. For instance, Rose describes rap music as being a “hidden transcript,� in which the lyrics challenge inequalities (Rose, p.100). Rose continues on by arguing that, “Cultural expressions of discontent are no longer protected by the insulated social sites that have historically encouraged the refinement of resistive transcripts� (Rose, p.101). Rap and hip-hop music receive much scrutiny because they challenge dominate social norms/ideologies, yet at the same time, they are readily available to audiences all around the world. Although hip-hop and rap are seen as being controversial, especially in terms of territorial matters, the mere fact that they are able to promote global equality through the sounds and messages of their lyrics is phenomenal. Through creative expressions and voices, rap and hip-hop are able to create a sense of power and belonging through an excursion into different cultures.

Posted by eisl0005 at 11:30 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I really enjoyed this week’s hip hop panel event. In all honesty I was expecting the panel members to be more “thuggish.� I was so intrigued by the scholarly conversation that Alexs Pate and Melisa Reviere held, and their extensive knowledge on the hip hop movement. It is so interesting to hear about this form of “history� that is very current, and is directly effecting our country right here and now.

The first question I had that was discussed was in regards to Tricia Rose’s “Fear of a Black Planet� article. I was curious if Melisa or Alexs would think that banning rap and hip hop in certain spaces was a way that society was oppressing African Americans. Although they did not specifically address this regarding the oppression on black people, they did discuss the issue of fighting over public space with hip hop. Melisa said that all four elements of hip hop (rap, graffiti, breakdancing, and turntable) were all about challenging territory and personal space. Alexs added that rap is always local, and always “of a place and of those people.� I think this implies that by banning hip hop performances from certain venues is the same as taking away the ability for hip hop artists to expand their space. It’s taking away their opportunity to reach out to people, and is definitely a form of oppression.

Another question of mine came from reading Robert Walser’s article about how Chuck D’s lyrics were the center of controversy regarding hip hop culture. I was wondering if the panelists would put Public Enemy on the same level as artists such as Elvis and Dylan as far as being controversial, industry-changing artists. Alexs talked about how people had toyed with the concept of rap in the late 60’s by putting poetry to music, but then there was the “big bang� in the late 70’s that let the voices in the community be heard who were being “smothered� before. Melisa added that each element of rap is intended to be oppositional against things that the people feel are oppressive. To me, this is exactly like what Dylan did in the 60’s. Both Public Enemy and Dylan brought up some controversy by exposing problematic issues through their music, but as a result they both brought about a change in the music industry.

Posted by osbo0100 at 10:50 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In the article “Foucault’s Turntable: Hip-Hop scholars Bumrush the Academy,� Hua Hsu reviews the work of Professor Todd Boyd. On of his remarks was that, “Hip-hop was easier to legitimize then [10 years ago in the 1990s] because it was ‘better’-more well rounded, more political, more purposefully angry� (Hsu 3).

This got me thinking, has hip-hop lost its meaning and if so, how would we define today’s version of hip-hop? But before I could answer that, I needed to know exactly what hip-hop is. Professor Pate and Professor Riviera were able to answer that. They said that hip-hop is a culture meant to be an opposition to the main stream culture. Hip-hop is the whole package: fashion, rap, graffiti, break dancing, publications, etc. Rap is particularly important because it acts as the literature of the culture.

Professor Pate talked specifically about rap and how a lot of the reason that hip-hop has lost some of its edge is because of all the “bad rap� that gets circulated into the main stream. Professor Riviera adds to this saying that modern rap and hip-hop is being re-sold to you as a way to tone down the rebellious aspect. By making hip-hop common, it lowers its influence; it is commercialism used to control the masses.

Both professors emphasized that hip-hop is still very much alive and powerful, but that you need to be looking in the right places. Professor Riviera emphasized the power of hip-hop on the global scene. She says that hip-hop is ever changing because changing politics will lead to changing forms of hip-hop. She says that repression leads to artistic expression, so hip-hop is all about what’s happening politically at the time.

Posted by kenne404 at 10:49 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

American History X is a great film that offers opinions from either side through one character, the ex-neo Nazi Derek, and the post-prison-reformed Derek. The scene where the Vinyard family is having dinner with Mr. Murray, the history teacher from Derek and Danny’s high school and Derek begins his racist rant describes the opposite end of anti-racism, that Blacks had “enough time to get their shit together�. The rant offers a lot of point that pro-White members seem to agree with; the movie legitimizes pro-White opinion and justifies there action against minorities, but as we see Derek change throughout the movie and he reforms after befriending a Black inmate and betrayed by his own neo-Nazi group, the positive change and regret that Derek feels offers hope to the audience that racism can be ended. After all of the graphic violence depicted earlier in the film, the reformation and determination of Derek to get his family out of this mess – from his neo-Nazi former friends, Cameron, and the place they grew up and restart the film seemed to be moving towards a positive ending, except the eerie soundtrack foretold that something wasn’t going well. In a way, the ending is appropriate commentary that racism isn’t something that can be eliminated so quickly. Racism varies in form and origin relates to everyone in one way or another and simply “moving away� will not hide the fact that the neo-Nazi group led by Cameron is still looming in that city.
I agree with Beck’s commentary on the film (“Although the hero image is the…�) especially the scene with the most heinous crime within the film where Derek curbdrops one of the Black males that sought revenge after a lost match on court. The movie is stretched out to slow motion, and as the police yells orders at Derek to resign without protest, the black and white colored segment accentuates every color depth and the car light illuminating him from behind made him seem almost at his highest, as if he did nothing wrong. Although if you think about most of the pro-White members never questioned whether their actions were justified or not, they had to be right.

Posted by lungx009 at 10:31 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

What is the difference between hip-hop and rap? According to professor Pate, “rap is the literature of hip-hop and hip-hop is a cultural opposition to the dominant mainstream.� Therefore, rap is an element of hip-hop and hip-hop is a culture. According to Hun Hsu, “hip-hop was easier to legitimize then because it was “better�-more well rounded, more political, more purposefully angry� (Hsu 3). Professor Pate said that rap and hip-hop always represents something. He also went on to say that the views of the people in the communities that were smothered out took the form of hip-hop because otherwise it was impossible to bring out these views politically. Today, we do not hear a lot of rap that is purposefully angry and includes a political message. Most of the radio stations censor and play “gatekeeper� on the content the audience hears. According to professor Pate radio stations, such as 101.3 KDWB and B96, play bad music because the music they play goes along with the dominant culture mainstream. According to T. Martinez, “ultimately rap is the voice of urban African American youth, and that this voice is a form of resistance to and survival within the dominant social order� (Martinez 272). Radio stations such as KDWB and B96 do not convey this side of rap and hip-hop. These radio stations music does not reflect the hopelessness, the anger, and violence the people are living with.

Posted by karp0040 at 4:39 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This week’s discussion opened my eyes to a whole area of study I didn’t know existed. Although I didn’t use it in my questions for this week, I notice and was intrigued by the quote from Harmanci’s interview with David Cook, “you have an interesting phenomenon, where the ‘hip-hop experts,’ with university appointments attached to their name, have no credibility whatsoever in hip-hop circles.� I am glad this statement was addressed, as it made me wonder, “well then who do we think we are talking about this today?�

I thought Alexs Pate from the Department of African and African American Studies provided a great response to that question. His analogy of this study of rap to studies of different literatures made it very clear why it isn’t important to him what people in hip-hop circles think of him. He sees it as important that someone study and validate hip-hop, and particularly rap, as an art form, a form of expression, literature. He is a critic like any other.

Throughout the discussion, Pate’s passion for “rap poetry� was evident and thought-provoking. Particularly, his identification of rap as “the first literary export of African Americans� provided an enlightened view of rap as an art form.

Posted by mayxx145 at 4:16 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

It was interesting what Professor Pate said about how he doesn’t call the music rap, but rap poetry because the lyrics are poetic and what make the song important. He also said how many rap songs played on mainstream radio stations today are “bad�. I agree with this, and it is supported by another interesting point in the discussion how third party sales in the music industry are behind a lot of the music that is played on mainstream radio today. Most of this music lacks the passion and politics in their lyrics that is what made early rap so significant. When this is what many of the “teeny boppers� of today are listening to “in the club� as Professor Riviere explained, it creates a very superficial youth culture today, which was not seen during times of early hip hop or during the counterculture movement of the 1960s. This is ultimately leading to the demise of rap music since the big budget record labels do not support the underground hip-hop today.

The rhythm and the lyrics are what make a rap song, but each song needs to be unique in order to be something special. I thought Professor Pate’s theory of “I am� was interesting going along with this. Since blacks were enslaved in the antebellum era, they were not their own person because they were not allowed to be educated or do much besides work. This is why rap music is so unique. Each person wants to make a song their own by showing their personality through it, contrary to what the slaves were able to do. Pate’s TA mentioned that this “I am� theory of making one’s uniqueness stand out is important for marginalized people. So the sampling of music is simply taking something that is already there and making it their own. Whether or not the sampling is ethical or not because it is taking someone else’s rhythms is another issue. However, the uniqueness of rap music within the hip hop community is an important part of defining the African American culture and how they have conquered the stereotypes placed on them because of enslavement by whites.

Posted by kuni0018 at 10:07 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by schr0845 at 11:54 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

A film like American History X, on its own, is not powerful enough to perpetuate racism. Those who go into the film with racism in their hearts or a history of racist activity may identify with the ideas and behaviors of the racist characters in the film but, ultimately, it is a film, a story, not meant to incite or illicit behaviors. That is the danger in film, and music, literature, etc. you can only control the product, not the reactions or actions of the audience after consuming the product. Similarly, Boyz ‘N the Hood was not meant to propagate black urban crime or negative attitudes and language towards women, but I am sure there were some that walked away from the film thinking that the characters’ bad behavior was “cool,� even though it was meant as an example of the negative aspects and a “what not to do� learning experience. American History X surely had similar consequences. Some people are just incapable of “getting it� – understanding the true message, because they can only see with their limited vision, and will only choose to believe that their way (racism) is right and that this film serves as proof.

This film intentionally or unintentionally does not reveal the insidious ways in which racism creeps into popular culture. Racism exists – fact. Sexism exists. All forms of discrimination exist today – whether or not we witness these acts on a daily basis – they are there. People have histories rooted in bigotry, families perpetuate certain ideals. These forces are much more powerful than a film. We cannot blame a movie for a critical and unresolved dilemma in our nation. Rather than pointing a finger at the entertainment industry, we should focus our attention on raising education levels and breaking the vicious cycles and influences of racism.

I agree with Beck in that sure, maybe the villainous character is attractive, but only in the sense that “The Joker� from Batman or “Tony Montana� from Scarface is attractive. It’s not that we “like� these characters, but they serve an attractive purpose in the film. We are attracted to these dark characters because of their unattractive ways – but in no way does that mean we try to emulate them. In a movie we may root for the “bad guy� or find him more interesting, but I can guarantee, in reality those of us free from the ignorant history of racism and with any sense of morality are rooting for the good guys – because we are the good guys.

Posted by rinas001 at 9:33 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I agree that women’s perspectives are largely ignored in the film, but the pressing issues are visible in the violent and derogatory language directed at either the female characters in the movie, or when discussing women in general. Too seldom does a woman in the movie talk back or defend herself, and when it does happen she is immediately silenced with further degradation, for example (two exchanges between Shalika and DoughBoy): “Who you callin' a ho', I ain't no ho'.� “Oops, I'm sorry, bitch.� and “Why is it every time you talk about a female you gotta say bitch, ho, or hootchie?� “'Cause that's what you are.� Although the audience gets to see the treatment of women in the hood, these issues are not given ample scrutiny, not nearly as much as the violence between the men. And I understand that the movie is called “Boyz ‘N the Hood,� but these are “boys� treating women in an unacceptable and vicious manner, and I agree with the critics that believe these situations should not have been ignored.

The language directed at the women honestly makes the movie difficult to watch. Although the movie is not supposed to send a positive, “be like me� message, a lot of viewers walk away identifying with the characters and, therefore, imitating some of their behavior, specifically, the treatment of women. Some viewers may even find those scenes funny and less serious than others, whereas I believe them to be the most attention-worthy. Why do relationships, hardships, discrimination and injustices between men always conjure more immediate attention and publicity than those facing women?

The film would have been different if it had been told from the viewpoints of women only in the sense that most of the violence would have been more direct physical contact and sexual abuse. Women, whether raped within the home, on the streets, or sexually mistreated through unfortunate choices such as prostitution and stripping, are equally, if not more often abused. Men come home from the hard street life and may find comfort in beating up on their woman, so as to relieve the frustrations of being the one beaten. Also, had the movie been told from a woman’s perspective, the language directed at men would not have been remotely as offensive – we don’t have nearly as large an arsenal of violent male-directed vocabulary.

Posted by rinas001 at 5:15 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The film Talk to Me does a decent job in showing varying degrees, but equally jarring, racial divisions in the 1960’s – 1970’s working world. The people in positions of power in the film are portrayed as the controlling, white, corporate America types, and although Dewey has worked alongside many of these men for some time, he is still considered lower down on the hierarchy and that truly there is “only one boss,� – in this case, the white man. Dewey has had to adapt to their mold to achieve his success. He, unlike Petey, would not have “made it� in “their� world without conforming. Whereas Petey’s marketability was his “blackness,� Dewey’s was his ability to blend in with the world around him. And although they achieved their success through different strategies, one by defying the norm (Petey) and the other playing into it (Dewey), at the end of the day, both men are agents of profitability for the higher-level white men in positions of power. In a sense, Petey’s freedom is still an illusion; he is still a cash cow for those whom he opposes.

Posted by rinas001 at 3:26 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

When Billy suggests that they are ready for retirement in Florida, and Wyatt responds “we blew it,� they are both, in a sense, accepting and admitting their defeat. They are defeated in the sense that they started their journey searching for a deeper spiritual purpose, a way “out� of regular society and its expectations and constraints. They do not want to be a part of the “man’s� ideals and rules, but they come to realize that, for them, this is not an option. They witnessed and briefly experienced a truly alternative lifestyle was like while visiting the commune, and realized it was not for them – the struggle and difficulties facing those that chose to go against the grain and live outside society were not the ideal conditions under which they longed to live. “We blew it� is more symbolic than their trek to Mardi Gras; it encompasses the disillusionment of many that strove for the counterculture lifestyle. As much as they wanted to be the ultimate “nonconformists� they also didn’t want to struggle to survive. They realized to live the good life, to partake in the luxuries of life, such as retiring in Florida, they had to succumb to the pressures of society. Retiring in Florida is certainly against the counterculture ideal, and this is what he means by “we blew it.� Both Wyatt and Billy are recognizing that their journey for ultimate individualism and freedom only awakened their realism – it is almost impossible, in our world and society, to live completely outside of the grips of the corporate, conformist American way of life.

Posted by rinas001 at 3:09 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The film American History X touches on many of the social issues in America, such as racism, hate crimes, affirmative action, and immigration. These topics were covered at a very superficial level, I believe it some what perpetuates racism. The movie leave viewers with more questions then answer, which is great that it leave us to question our society we live in. But in movies such as this that deals with hot topic like racism, just barley mentioning many controversial topics like affirmative action, poverty and immigration without fully dissecting these issues could be very dangers. Unless viewers are in academic setting where they could follow up with many of the issues that were addressed in the films, must viewer will answer many of the questions that were raised in the movie on their own. Answers and expansions will depend on viewer’s background, most of the time with incomplete information. This films “are problematic because individually and especially taken as a group, they ironically privilege a particular ‘white’ experience and interpretation of struggles….. that is an interpretation infused with white supremacist ideology� (Madison, 405) I also think it gives hate groups their own voice in popular America. It tries to justify their hate, anger and rage.

Posted by mula0013 at 11:55 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

“American History X� was indeed a shocking portrait of the ugliness that humans can possess if influenced ever slightly in the wrong way. We know that one main argument about this film is its stance on racism, whether it be pro or anti. The film shows qualities of both, I assert, which are fleshed out mainly by Edward Norton’s character, Derek. Beck stated that Derek “shows the very different sides of the character as villain and hero. Although the latter image is one offered for the audience’s approval, the former one may very well have the greater impact.� That is, the inhumanity seen in Derek’s character as the leader of his “skinhead� gang is gruesome enough and strong enough to almost wipe out his redemption, thus making the film very much racist. For example, black stereotypes in the film are more unintentional I think, but they are still there, when most of the men in the prison are black, when it is black men who are breaking into Derek’s car, and even when it is black men who will fight at the drop of a hat on the neighborhood basketball court. Especially seen and spoken through the eyes of mostly the gang Derek and Danny are tangled up with, the feelings of white power and racism are prominent in this film.

This film takes a great turn while Derek is in prison and upon his release. As Finley states, the film “implies that prison is an effective way to reform racist individuals yet we know that in reality many racists formulated their notions of white superiority while incarcerated.� We see that Derek is a good measure of the way prison supposedly reforms racists, and Finley goes on to say how Derek “becomes almost a sympathetic character.� In this light, as Derek discontinues his old ways and tries to get his brother and other friends to follow suit, he does become somewhat part of the “white hero� myth, not for reasons of power, but for his personal triumphs against racial emotions and violence towards minorities. We can only hope that after the ending scene, where his brother is shot by one of his black schoolmates, that Derek’s experiences have been changing enough to prevent a recession into his past behaviors.

Posted by joh02361 at 11:47 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

American History X has been praised as a powerful anti-racism “must see� film. I actually believe that the film perpetuates racism that it might claim to reveal. According to B. Beck, “what could be more attention grabbing than the image of bad people trying to harm us?� (Beck 19). Who are the bad people? The people that started the gangs. Who are they? Blacks. One of the reasons the neo-Nazi gang formed is to protect themselves. Danny said, “There were no white gangs in Venice Beach prior to the organization of black groups. Venice Beach used to be a nice, quiet place to live in� (American History X). Majority of the black people are depicted in a stereotypical fashion. To name a few: the beginning of the film opens up with three black males trying to steal Derek’s vehicle, another scene shows three black kids beating up one white kid in the bathroom at school, and yet another scene, probably the prime perpetuator of racism from this film, involves a black kid shooting Danny, for no apparent reason, as he finishes urinating. Danny false into the urinal and lays there as if he is some kind of white trash. Finley said the following as he referred to blacks, “The most frequently used stereotype is that of a violent thug� (Finley 230). This film depicted just that. I viewed the ending of the film as almost justifying the white aggression towards the blacks. I felt great compassion and sympathy for Derek over his loss. If this film strived for anti-racism it should have presented different perspectives of both sides of the groups equally. The film seemed one sided in that we connect with the white people, Derek and Danny, mainly but not with the black people. There is no one black character that stays long enough through out the movie for the audience to connect with. Their, blacks, side of the story is almost concealed from us with the exception of the black man working on laundry in prison.

Posted by karp0040 at 11:36 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

After seeing American History X, there are certainly two ways in which the violence in the film can be interpreted. For some, the brutal acts in the film expose real world violence that they cannot relate to. In this sense, the film can be seen as a learning tool, in which the violence reinforces morals and warns viewers of the consequences of such acts. On the other hand, the violence used in American History X can perpetuate systems of prejudice, discrimination and brutality. If the characters and their acts in the film leave an impression of power and dominance on the audience, then violent images and content may indeed keep these systems intact. This is a strong argument made by Bernard Beck. I completely agree that, often times, villains and their actions are misconstrued to leave the impression of power, excitement and emotion. This can go against the purpose of the film in the sense that instead of exposing and abolishing bigotry and acts of violence, the images tend to promote such negative actions. I wish to add something to Beck’s argument as well. The environment and conditions under which you view such violent films is greatly important. In a classroom setting in which you are given relevant historical background, such a film as American History X can be used as a great learning tool. In this way, the cultural backdrop is set and the audience can view the film with the knowledge of the true consequences of violence and bigotry. Violent films can also be learning tools in the home if they are presented as a means of curtailing violence. On the other hand, however, if such films are viewed without the proper historical knowledge, Beck may be correct—the villains may seem more exciting, relatable and able to imitate. This is how violent films, such as X, can perpetuate violence in society instead of helping to alleviate it.

Posted by stap0069 at 11:31 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

American History X perpetuates the thinking that only wild extremist groups can be privy to racism. It also perpetuates it by highlighting the white racists as a radical group of individuals segregating themselves from the greater normal (non-racist) white population, while the black student who shoots Danny at the end of the movie is seen as almost the norm of a black person, and the principle, Dr. Bob Sweeney, is seen as the anomaly. The hero in the movie is portrayed as having less impact on the people around him, and on the audience. This shows him as being a more powerful character and therefore more appealing to the audience while still being portrayed as the ‘villain’
The film only lightly shows the opposing side of those who commit hate crimes. One example of this is the black policeman, who although a functioning member of society and one with an honorable profession, is just as racist as many overt characters in the film. Another example is of the black student who shoots Danny. He is somewhat shown as fighting back against the people who were victimizing him, but the film seems to show that only against white people.
Derek as the “Anti-racist white hero� is perpetuated by the film. This is only slightly muddled by the film showing him being hesitant to help out the police and act as a hero. The film does perpetuate black stereotypes; one of them being the struggle of the principle to gain respect as a black man in his position, and the black students as aggressors against the weak student in the bathroom.
The ending does shift American History X as a slightly more nihilistic film because of Derek’s change occurring before Danny’s death, something that might have been the catalyst for change in his light, but doesn’t make it an overtly one. Danny’s life seems to have been unimportant because the changes Derek makes in prison are totally discrete from the evolution of Danny into a skinhead. Since his change happened separate from Danny, the act of his brother’s murder would only show Derek that there is more to being racist than just skin color.

Posted by nemme003 at 11:25 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Other than Derek’s father, the movie depicted most of the characters in gangs as being racists. This path of showing how racism comes about in America does not explain why people really hate each other. It rather provides a narrow pattern through which many people would conclude that gangs play a huge role in enforcing racism.

Derek’s was released from prison and his life seemed to quickly change to becoming a better person. Even though the movie seemed to explain how much of a role that sending gang members to jail would play in eradicating racism, it is not really credible in the minds of American people.

Too many people had been and continue to be sent to jail, but such solution does not do much to helping better the society. Not to say that the movie producer was definitely trying to show that sending bad people to jail is the only solution to the problem within the society, but I do not agree that in reality racism will go away by sending more people to jail.

Posted by onon0006 at 11:24 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

American History X, despite its best effort to shun racism, instead reinforced some of the very stereotypes which they were trying to debunk. For example, with the exception of Dr. Sweeney, every black actor or actress was either in a gang, in jail, or was made out to be a "thug". We see this early on in the movie when Danny walks into the bathroom and sees three black kids beating up one defenseless white kid. Verbal threats are thrown at Danny, arguably unnecessarily, from the three black kids, and Danny blows his cigarette smoke in one of the kid's faces instead of threatening the three kids or fighting back (I guess it can be argued that him blowing the smoke could be some sort of "challenge" or degradation, but I think its better than saying racist threats back, or trying to physically fight back). We find out later that the kid who Danny blew his smoke at actually ends up shooting and killing Danny. I think the movie, perhaps without meaning to, portrays most of the black actors and actresses in the movie as being apathetic and willing to kill over the smallest thing. Danny was supposed to be the bad guy when he first blew the smoke at the beginning of the movie, when I thought it was really the other kids who should have been "bad". Danny never threatens those kids again in the movie, but still he is shot. I think also they made Dr. Sweeney black to avoid being an overtly racist movie; he was the only person we see of authority that is black in the movie, don't you think there would be other teachers or administrators who were something other than white? All in all I think this movie was definitely trying to portray an anti-racist message, but they still reinforced some of the stereotypes which they were trying to prove false.

Posted by ruppx051 at 11:17 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The film "American History X," is a film that seems to condemn racism. Though the main character is incredibly racist and makes intellectual claims as to why he is racist, the film portrays him as incredibly barbaric. The things him and his group of followers do are terrible and have little backing. Although Derek will make intellectual and factual claims to support his cause, it is through his social interactions with the black man in jail and with his former teacher, that make him realize how he may be very wrong on his views on race. Because of that, this film makes it clear that even intelligent people can skew facts and thoughts in their mind so that they justify their actions and beliefs. However, once put in real-life social situations it is clear that people can drastically change their minds, as is the case with Derek. It may be a little of an exaggerated change in Derek, yet it shows that just one person can really effect the way a person views the world.

Posted by Martine Schroeder at 11:11 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The film American History X dives into a world of extreme racism, hate and violence. Throughout the movie, we see the main character Danny deal with the racism that has been instilled in him ever since he was a boy. With the help of his brother Derek, who was once an influential member of a group of racist skinheads, Danny finally looses his hatred towards other races. The majority of the film is somewhat anti-racist in tone, revealing the devastation racism can bring to a family and a community; however, when Danny is shot by an African American student in the final minutes of the movie, it leaves audiences to believe that acceptance and peace between races is almost impossible if only one group attempts to change. This lead to one major critique of the film that white people are depicted as the only ones who can make change and stereotypes black people as violent. Another critique of the film is that it portrays racists as violent skinheads and does not take into account that racism can be found in not so obvious ways as well. I would agree that American History X is an extreme in its accounts of racism; however, the scene where Derek and Danny’s father, who is a well respected fireman, talks to Derek about his racist views shows that not all racists are extremists.

Posted by colb0086 at 10:58 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This has got to be the most intense movie I have seen in a long time. The opening scene is just a shock to everyone and it is just one of those things you don't want to watch but can't help it. There is such an intense hatred between the supremacists and everyone else that it is hard to see why they are doing such violent acts. Although Derek attempts to give an explanation as to why they do what they do, it is very hard to agree with in any way. His father also gives a convincing lecture about people getting jobs because they are of a different race. However that benefits so many more people than one would expect. I do believe being of a different race helped me get into the university, as there were people ahead of me but got denied. Having a school or work of only white people also leads to the racist accusations that no one wants to hear. The things you see in this film leave a lasting impression and especially a chosen few scenes dont leave your memory in any short time.

Posted by leex2727 at 10:55 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Since previewing the syllabus in the beginning of the semester I have been looking forward to viewing the film "American History X." Luckily I had not read the article “The White Supremacist in Anti-Racist Films� written by Laura J. and Peter S. Finley prior to Wednesday night. I was actually rather disappointed in some of the views depicted in the article. One of my favorite characters was Lamont, Derek’s prison laundry room partner. The article, however, describes him as “happy-go-lucky� and says “it is as if he doesn’t really mind the fact that he is in prison for dropping a television on a police officer’s foot.� In the conversation between Derek and Lamont where they are learning about one another, I saw a lot of emotion behind his explanation of what had landed him in prison. He is clearly not happy about being there, but there is nothing he can do to change the situation. I saw him as charismatic, bright, and friendly; three qualities that are beneficial for any individual, regardless of race, gender, or religion. It is obvious through the character development of Lamont that he is well liked and has a lot of persuasive power in the prison since Derek makes it out alive despite being liked by almost no one. A “happy-go-lucky� or carefree prisoner would probably not have that kind of support. Lamont was also the seed of Derek's transformation. He taught Derek to open his eyes and his heart, and I don’t believe that any of it was unintentional as the article implies.

Posted by weir0041 at 10:52 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I think what bothers me most about American History X is it complete lack of finesse in terms of being an effective commentary on the state of American race relations. As we discussed in class its shocking content raises issues with whether or not the film actually stands as a conductor of constructive conversation. Obviously since the film is able to generate some discussion, whether we can really determine if its productive or not in terms of the message its trying to relay, its worth considering even if its just to help reveal the misconstruing power of the American media. The part of the film that’s most effective for me, and probably the most successful in the eyes of most viewers, is Derek's journey to understanding through going to prison. This is mostly because the plot is compelling in a way that doesn’t occur throughout the rest of the film. It is more poignant and meaningful and realistic than any of the over the top occurrence that appear throughout the rest of the film. While an extreme sect of society is focused on in the movie I mostly find that it is lacking in any sort of critical analysis. The extremeness of the situations in which they are portrayed in untypical. While the violence and hatred being acted upon or vocalized isn’t necessary untrue it manages to become a caricature of itself and perpetuates idea about where hatred is cultivated, how it festers and how it is projected into the world. A lot of hate is entirely harbored through conventional practices and this film treats racial relations as though hate and fear exist due to these extreme sorts of sources. It’s also so rudimentary in its final message that it’s a little offensive. It manages to reel you into a plot in which you ultimately fear for and have compassion for all characters involved but finally in the end leaves with a rotten taste in our mouth. “Hate transcends all� is definitely a valuable message but in dealing with such a complicated issue that is so specific to American communities it seems this film can only be strictly based on projecting a vision of society that is going to be shocking on exploitative in order to promote ticket sales, not inform. Boo-urns.

Posted by tapol001 at 10:50 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

American History X is a very strong film that shows conflicting racism in America. The film uses racist symbols, and acts to perpetuate the racism in the film. Many critics deemed the film as racist, despite the good intentions of showing Derek’s change during the film. Black stereotypes are reinforced in the film. This is obvious as the hero of the film is Derek, a white neo-Nazi racist. Finley emphasizes this by calling American History X racist thanks to the use of a “white hero�. This film intentionally reveals the insidious ways in which racism creeps into popular culture. Slowly throughout the movie you could see how the death of Derek and Danny’s father led Derek especially to Cameron’s neo-Nazi group, eventually becoming the leader of the harmful and destructive hatred towards other races. However in the end I do not believe that Derek would return to the group, even after the death of Danny. The film also intentionally shows how change can be brought about even if you have very strong beliefs about something. Derek spent three years in jail, slowly changing over time, understanding that any race can be good or bad. For Derek to change took very powerful actions. While the other neo-Nazi men in prison raped and bashed Derek in prison, the use of Derek’s black workmate in prison was just as effective to change Derek. Derek had so much hatred for Blacks, and was stubborn to get along with his black workmate. Change in Derek began after the conversation about “sheets reminding him of women and sex�. Beck explains “Although the [hero] image is the one offered for the audience’s approval, the former [villainous] many well have the greater impact on the audience… what they condemn in words is made attractive visually on the screen�. Derek’s speech before the grocery store raid was very powerful and made attractive visually on the screen thanks to the use of powerful close up shots of the villainous leader, and black and white camera shots. Its use of words is the most powerful hatred I have heard in a film, and the lighting lead the audience to believe something powerful, and shocking is about to occur.

Posted by campb503 at 10:49 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

My initial reaction when our instructor said, "There are images in this film that you won't forget..." was that it takes a lot more than some violence to create a permanent place in my memory banks for some radical image. I won't say that I am fully wrong, but the film as a whole fills me with a sense of dread. As depicted in American History X racism is a long deep pit with almost no way out. The main characters are moved to doing what they believe is right for all of society, or at least those that belong in society. But when they realize that their worlds are completely out of proportion it is too late too leave. Danny may day at the end of the film, but what happens to the rest of the family? Left with us to ponder the ramifications of one person on the rest of the family unit the only reasonable solution to their problem of violence would be to relocate. This movie is not just about racism and urban war in America, but also the future of those left for dead or have a price on their heads from certain anti-race groups. My last remark is about the scene where Derek stomps a man's face into the curb. This seems symbolic for the destruction of voice by an anti-minority group. The victor is the one who stands victorious of the cold and lifeless body, but is actual defeated by the picture and memory of the person, which speaks more than words.

Posted by Chris Lewis at 10:35 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The first word that comes to mind after viewing American History X is powerful. It's a film that deals with one of the great struggles in America; Racism. It is a film that doesn't really give concrete solutions to the serious problems with racism, but it forces the audience to open their eyes and expand their minds on the issues. Derek, played masterfully by Edward Norton, allows hate to creep into his heart after his family suffers the loss of the father. The film uses an interesting use of color to show the different states of the mind. While the film is black and white, Derek is viewing the world and other issues from the perspective that things can actually be viewed in terms of black and white. After jail, when he is able to change his beliefs, the film changes to color and we see a completely different person in Derek. As far as him being a hero, I don't believe he is. He deserves to be commended for his ability to overcome the internal hatred that was so firmly planted inside of him, but he is not a hero. He is very complex character, as I see him as both perpetrator and victim at the same time. The leader of the D.O.C. in Venice took advantage of him during a time when he was most vulnerable, but ultimately he made the choices that led to his incarceration. His incarceration was very metaphorical in the sense that while his body was behind bars, the better person within himself was freed. This film is so honest in its depiction of the human heart and mind. Hatred is something that exists within all human being, but we have the ability to accept it or reject it. Racism has always been a problem in this country and it will continue to be as time moves on, but we as individuals can make the decisions to treat all people with the same respect and consideration we'd like to be shown in return. It's a violent film depiciting a violent country's fears and prejudices as they really are. Racism is fueled by ignorance, fear, and hate and in order to defeat those evils, we need to start very early in life in terms of educating our children and young people about the dangers that come with racism.

Posted by moros007 at 10:28 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I think Edward Norton was awesome in this film. He played both villain and protagonist believably. In Bernard Beck’s article, he states that in dramas, “the villains must engage our emotions. They must arouse fear, hate, anger, and combativeness. Those are the resources the moviemaker needs to propel us through the plot; their resolution at the end is what leaves us satisfied� (Beck 20). From the start of the film, Derek definitely engaged my emotions, beginning with his vicious killing of the black men. His unfounded hatred certainly brought on feelings of anger as I watched; not understanding how he could hate with so much passion and actually believe what comes from his own mouth. The fear aspect came from the skinhead group, or “strange, frightening figures who are homegrown� as Beck refers to them (21). Though this was only a movie, a quick Google search illustrates that they are many groups like this still in existence today. I don’t understand how in a country founded through diversity, there are still people filled with so much hate toward other people, even in 2008. Of course, racism is far from over and has transformed itself into more concealed forms, this blatant, full-on hate, seems to have left the minds of many today, except in groups like this. Derek’s passion for hate, leads the audience into feelings of odium, however once he returns from prison, it’s a whole different story. Beck comments that Derek “is transformed into a wise, loving, redeemed figure� (21). After having built up disgust with Derek for half of the film, it was a little hard to let it go and see him in a different light until he starts talking with Danny.

Had that been the end of the movie, as Beck discusses, the resolution would have left me satisfied (20). After such an emotional roller coaster, I was down with the movie, before the end. Guy was evil, now he’s good and teaching his brother, ok, great, got it. But then, “the triumphant climax leads to catastrophic tragedy� (Beck 21) when the young black man comes in and shoots Danny for no good reason. (On a side note, in our latest two films, I think the black men are shown as ultra-irritable, which does have some merit, but I question the extent. In BNH, Ricky bumps into a guy who later comes back and shoots him while in AHX, the boys get into it, as many boys do, and the black boy comes back and shoots him. Is that a fair portrayal or stereotype? It is just something to think about.) For me, this seems to un-do the progress the film had made. However, others argue that the scene demonstrates we don’t live in a perfect world, and though individuals may change, hate/racism does not. I understand that side as well, but it seems like it adds fuel to the fire and gives reason for racists to say that Derek’s former way of thinking was right and that “you trust these people and they turn around and stab you in the back�. In the end, racism wins and I know for sure that if Derek remains under his transformation umbrella, his tolerance will be put to the test. I know it would be difficult or near impossible for me not to return to that mindset, if not one, but TWO members of my family that I loved dearly were killed unnecessarily by members of a race that I already had learned to hate. Hopefully, Derek was able to stay committed to his new cause and not revert.

Posted by Jasmine Omorogbe at 10:22 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

“American History X� is a film that, after first viewing it when it came out in 1998, inspired me to become more of an activist for social causes. I had supported and been interested in organizations that fought for civil rights, justice, and change, but this film was the catalyst that got me off the sidelines and more actively involved. Because I viewed “American History X� as one of those “important� films, I found the articles, “Legitimation Crisis and Containment: The ‘Anti-Racist-White-Hero’ Film, by Kelly J. Madison, and “The White Supremacist in Anti-Racist Films� by Laura L. Finley and Peter S. Finley, somewhat jarring and my opinions in need of some reevaluation. Not before these articles, did I ever encounter any dissenting beliefs regarding this film, and, though I still feel it has some relevance to the issue of racism in America, I now view it with my rose-colored glasses removed and an awareness of the “Eurocentric� and “Anti-Racist-White-Hero� threads that run through it.

In “American History X,� as Madison states, “the ‘white’ protagonist is the subject; we experience ‘reality’ through his eyes. In comparison, ‘black’ characters are variously objectified, seen largely from the outside through the eyes of the ‘white’ hero (407).� The film follows brothers Derek and Danny, the former an ex-neo Nazi recently released from prison after serving time for murdering a black man, and the latter a budding neo-Nazi, looking to follow his older brother’s example. Through flashbacks, we learn what perpetuated the racist views of the brothers, but in real time, we see those views eventually disintegrate. Derek trying to steer Danny away from a destructive path, relates to him the paradoxical nature of his friends and enemies in prison, with his closest acquaintance being his black colleague in the laundry, and his adversaries being the other neo-Nazis. With the cleansing scene of the brothers taking down their Nazi paraphernalia, we are led to believe that all is well, that the brothers have reformed their ways, and that they will ride off into the sunset, two repentant souls. We are soon jerked back to reality, however, when Danny is gunned down by a black schoolmate.

The entire premise of the film closely adheres to the narrative structure Madison found to be prevalent in many films that discuss race, at least from the “white hero’s� point of view, with the “white hero sacrific[ing] a great deal…to further the cause of the black people’s struggle…suffering terribly for his or her efforts (405).� Aside from Danny’s principal, who is black, the film portrays only the white characters as making any headway in improving race relations. Derek prevails in removing Danny from of a life of hate and violence, and even agrees to work with police in an attempt to bring down the community’s neo-Nazi leader, Cam Alexander. In this film, we “delve into the complexity of the experiences of the ‘white’ protagonists,� but the black characters are left to perpetuate stereotypes, as discussed by Finley and Finley. They are depicted as “aggressive� towards both whites and members of their own race, drug abusers and dealers, unintelligent, and equally racist (230-31). Not only are the negatively and stereotypically depicted, they also contribute nothing to improving rapport between the races. This job, of course, falls solely on the “white hero.�

Posted by palaz012 at 10:21 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In response to idea number 2, I think that this movie, as well as society in general has a hard time grasping racism. The idea that only people who commit hate crimes are the stereotypical racist groups is completely fallacious. While I believe it is true that these types of groups may be more racist than some, even as much as an internal thought about hatred towards a person of another race, to me, would be considered racist. While I don't know exactly how to classify a "hate crime," I don't think burning crosses or walking around flaunting swastikas are the only things included. I think as far as the claim that younger people who watch movies like American History X will get the idea that that only type of racism is organized group racism is fairly true. They may get the idea that if they do not belong to an "actual" supremacy group that they are automatically not a racist. If they take on this mindset, they could think that they are exempt from being a racist because they do not belong to a group. They need to know that it does not take something as extreme as burning a cross to be considered a racist who is capable of committing a hate crime. Something as simple as harsh words can be considered a hate crime because not just physical acts do harm. Racism will always be a problem because many humans live by tradition. Since that is the case, there will probably always be people who are racist because it is a family norm. Cracking down on organized racism is just a small dent in a very large problem.

Posted by cloy0004 at 10:09 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

American History X was such a powerful movie. With all of the violence, racism, and life changes, it would be hard to catogorize this film as "non-interesting". Derek's character really depicted the lifestyle of a real-life preson growing up in those same conditions. Anyone who grows up being told specific people are bad and not worth being alive, are going ot think that same thing. Derek, although having to serve time in prison to do so, realized that this was not the person that he was and changed his lifestyle to try and put an end to all of the racism and hate people have for other races. I think this film was showed people that anyone can change their ways no matter what the extremes are and that you don't always have to follow in someone's footsteps; be your own person and make your own choices. I also think that racist people aren't just the ones that show it on the ourside, like tattoos and shaved heads. I would have to say that those people are true racists, but there are far more racist out there that don't show it and keep their opinions in until a situation comes around where they show their feelings. Racism is all around us and we really need to make it stop. We are all human and that is all that matters!

Posted by Katrina Heikes at 9:57 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

By: Elizabeth Bassett

Featured throughout many civil rights movies throughout the decades, the “anti-racist white hero� is a common theme. After watching American History X, I see how this idea was touched on in the film. At the same time, however, I recognized many contradictions to this ideal in relation to Danny and the various individuals he meets in his metamorphosis from racist to good guy.
In first looking at the idea of the “white hero� myth in relation to American History X, I feel that it is strongly contradicted at the beginning of the movie. This is apparent as the white people are the “bad guys� with organized crime when they break into the store and terrorize both the multi-racial workers as well as the caucasians who employed them. Contradictions of the “white-hero� are also seen when Derek forces the black man to bite the curb so he can break his skull after shooting both of his friends.
This movie exhibits complete opposition to many myths related to the typical civil rights movie as the story progresses and Derek finds himself in prison. Derek meets his black friend whom he folds clothes and talks with which calls forth the black stereotype into question. Boyz in the Hood revealed the black stereotype to be of men who had no purpose in life without proper jobs and extreme racism against white people. As Derek works with his black friend who cares about his job and Derek’s well-being, the stereotype of black men seen in Boyz in the Hood is reversed in American History X. As Derek is leaving the prison and saying good-bye to his friend he expresses that he wouldn’t have been able to make it through without him. Somehow, his black friend’s kindness and work ethic had helped to reverse Derek’s ideals regarding racism and white supremacy. Ultimately, his black friend becomes the hero of the story, completely defying the “white-hero� myth.
Finally, many people have suggested that this movie is very Eurocentric. In my opinion, I think it exhibits the very opposite of this ideal. Derek’s black friend initiated the friendship which greatly aided in Derek’s transformation. Had this film held greater Eurocentric ideals, Derek or another white man would have been more likely to instigate a friendship thereby aiding in changing the black man’s ideals. The ideal of Eurocentrism was also defied at the end of the movie when Danny was killed by one of his black school peers. Had Danny taken the role of the murderer, a Eurocentric attitude may have been more prevalent.

Posted by basse044 at 9:54 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The “white hero� myth is said to be depicted in this week’s film. Derek, who forces the audience into sympathy, shows how one can convert or transform his/her radical beliefs. Moving from evil to good is quite honorable but does this conversion earn a “hero� status? Madison notes, “The white hero sacrifices a great deal at the hands of white racists to further the cause of the black people’s struggle,� as a bullet point for a typical narrative structure. Derek’s sacrifice or unfortunate interaction with the other white racists may have came in prison, but it was not his will and even though it may have lead to his epiphany, his intentions at the time were not to help black people’s struggle. If Madison’s criteria is to be followed to classify a character as a “white hero� then Derek isn’t. He may be someone who underwent a transformation but it appears that he was forced into these converted beliefs.

Posted by luli0004 at 9:12 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I completely disagree with critics who believe that the film was sending a message stereotyping racists. After watching the film it didn’t make me think that people who committed hate crimes had shaved heads swastika tattoos or burned crosses and whore white sheets. L & P Finley argue that “American History X depicts hatred as a group phenomenon and that rednecks are depicted as the worst possible racist losers (233).� I think that this is partially true. Many neo-Nazi members are from small towns and are thought of as rednecks. Although this is true the intent of these characters was not to make the audience think that these characteristics distinctively belong to someone who would commit a hate crime. I also do not think that the film gives false cues to the audience about who is a racists. The film just gives an example of a notorious depiction of a racist in American culture. When many Americans think of a neo-Nazi they think of someone who has a shaved head, a swastika of some sort, and they may burn crosses and run around in sheets. The audience knows that these are not mutually exclusive with racists so this film does not give false cues.
I think that the depiction of hate groups in the film in some ways allows viewers that cracking down on racists groups will eliminate racism. I think if that is really the only exposure to racism then the audience might think that eliminating these groups would eliminate racism. Unfortunately racism is something that needs to be changed at an individual level. These groups would not exist if people were not racists. If you get rid of the groups you don’t remove racism but just displace it.
Grant Flatgard

Posted by flat0101 at 9:03 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

After seeing the film American History X in class I believe that it is both a great anti-racism film, while at the same time perpetuating racism. The film was very anti-racism if it was really listened to and the viewer really thought about what they were watching. There were many, many points in the film that pointed out the flaws in the beliefs of the racists. The racists used facts to support their beliefs, but these facts were twisted to support the view of the racists and if fully thought out the twisting of these facts were extremely obvious. At the same time however, if the viewer did not fully think through the facts that were being given they heavily supported racism.

The movie called attention to the flaws in the logic of the racists by having the main character realize the flaws himself. Despite this, the average viewer who was just going to the movie out of a desire for entertainment most likely still did not think hard about what this meant, meaning that the viewers simply listened to the very racist opening. The producers of the movie meant it to be an anti-racism film, as they expected people to really think about what they were hearing. Unfortunately people did not do this and their good intentions ended often ended up perpetuating racism rather than lessening it.

I found one part of this movie extremely disturbing. This is the first movie I have ever watched and have been really disturbed by. The thing that disturbed me was how the movie had me feeling about the crime Derek committed. The crime in and of itself was horrendous and sickening to watch as he stomped on the mans head. This in and of itself was disturbing and extremely wrong. I did not realize this while watching the movie but afterwards I realized that I was happy while watching the film that he had only gotten three years of jail time for his crimes, as in a way the movie made you like Derik and feel like he did not deserve more time. In afterthought while analyzing the movie I realized that I feel like the Derik should have had life in prison. For a crime like the one he committed I do not think he should be allowed to walk free again, regardless of his change of heart.

I think it is important to realize what is stated in The White Supremacist in Anti-Racist Films. The main characters that were pushing for equal rights and were fighting against racism, were not the minorities, but were instead white males. This shows unintentionally how white supremacist the film industry was as even in the anti-racism films white males were the ones who were cast in the positions of leadership and were given the main roles.

Posted by andre368 at 9:01 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

First off that I want to say that I really enjoyed American History “X� because it presented an interesting, and often conflict of racism in American society. I felt that the creator of this film was not supporting racism, but rather sending the message that racism is unnecessary in any society across the America. Even thought some of the scenes were very explicit and gory, it was necessary for the viewer to understand that racism is not just words of hate, but also acts of deadly violence. There are two examples violence in the film I remember most clearly is the beginning scene where Derek kills the three men for attempting to break into his car in the middle of the night. The other scene was when Derek’s little brother whom was also a skin head was shot a killed at school. Both of these scenes are perfect examples how racism and hate can escalate in to deaths.
Another aspect to the film that I found to be very interesting was how after Derek was released from jail he was perceived as a hero. Prison had an effect on Derek and once he got out of the penitentiary he cleaned up his life and wanted nothing to do with the “skin head� and wanted his brother and girlfriend to also get away from the scene. Some may say the a hero figure is more boring compared to a villainous figure, but this movie was about sending a positive message and I do not believe that would have been established if Derek would have went back to his old ways once being release from jail. Beck stated, “although the [hero] image is the one offered for the audience’s approval, the former [villainous] many well have the greater impact on the audience… what they condemn in words is made attractive visually on the screen� (21). I agree with this statement and feel by showing Derek as changed person it shows how people can change their ways and also the power evil can have on individuals.

Posted by white968 at 8:58 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I do believe that this film is misleading about what people in society can be considered racists. The film was much to adamant about placing every racist character in the movie in a gang of some sort. The only exception I observed was Derek's father, but his appearance was short and near the end of the movie, long after the gang stereotype for racism had been established. This practice is dangerous, as it gives misleading ideas about how to prevent and eliminate the racist problems found in America. The problem is not the gangs and individual people that commit racist acts, but the general stereotypes and prejudices that have invaded our entire country. The war on drugs has suffered similar setbacks. Too much time is spent focusing on individuals, low level people who are sent to jail but change nothing in respect to the status of our country (in terms of drug usage and distribution, for the purpose of this example, but the same idea applies to the racists who are put in jail). In order to change something that has saturated people's minds as thoroughly as these subtle racist nuances, there needs to be more changes at the top. Eliminating gangs changes nothing. Even eliminating the usage of certain, racially charged words changes nothing. The only way things change are to overhaul an entire society, to think and act differently, and to forget about the past. This will never happen, as personal experiences speak louder than any government words or mandates, so people will continue learning from older generations, who grew up with the (usually) subtle racism we see today.

Posted by hanse978 at 8:50 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In class this week we watched the film American History X. I had first seen this film last year for another class and never really paid that much attention to it. I was kind of in shock when I saw it the first time because I just thought that it was a really racist movie and never thought that they were actually trying to show how bad racism was and just how extreme these people really are. Derek was the head of a neo-Nazi racist group in Long Beach, California. He grew up hearing things from his father about how the blacks were just trying to take over the world and that whatever they said was total B.S. These things that Derek heard come from his fathers mouth were the words that helped shape him into the ideologist and terrible racist that he was. Derek's scene of when his group raids the grocery store was just a fine example of how crazy and insane these skin heads were and how they really believed that no one who was born outside of this country should be allowed to come here and take the Americans jobs. They went in there and absolutely terrorized innocent people just because they were not white. The beliefs of these people go to the extreme ends of the totem pole and they will let nothing get in the way of what they believe. This movie used racist acts and symbols to try to get the audience to see how bad racism really is. In the article L&P Finley argue that, "American History X depicts hatred as a group phenomenon and that rednecks are depicted as the worst possible racist losers" (233). I don't exactly agree with this statement because I believe that if he used a different group, such as an all black hate group, then the blacks would be viewed as the worst possible racist lovers. Danny, Derek's brother, idolized him wanted to be just like him. He did not always believe all of the stuff that Ethan told him to believe but he said it because he felt like that was the right thing to do because everyone else believed it. Derek's jail time proved to be a very positive and eye-opening experience for him. He went in thinking that no one could touch him and that he would be just fine because of his reputation. Danny soon finds out that the jail, just like in everyday society, has its own little checks and balances system and when he sees that one of his group members is dealing with a "spick" as he called it, he becomes very angry. He thinks this is totally unacceptable and because of the way he reacted to this, he is unfortunately raped later on in the shower. Danny soon realizes that what he is doing is completely wrong and his old principal Dr. Sweeney helps him realize this. Dr. Sweeney completely changes Derek’s opinion on the whole skin head group and his racist views. I believe that this film is an amazing depiction of what happens when you have these extreme views and what it really does to people. I definitely agree that this movie is an anti-racist film but it just shows it to us in a different light. As Beck puts it in his “Your Worst Nightmare: The Siege, American History X, and our Views of Enemies Foreign and Domestic� reading, “The horrors of the neo-Nazi movement are offered as a warning and as an object of condemnation, but they are also presented in exciting images of power, passion, and self righteousness.� I really feel this quote explains the movie in that it shows how bad racism really is but it shows it in the context of how these terrible racist skin heads view it as. This is not just a hobby for them, this is a way of life, they live, breathe, eat, and sleep for this hate group and soon they will find out what they have been doing to these innocent people will bite them in the butt in the end.

Posted by kapla137 at 8:42 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

After seeing this film I can understand why people might see American History X as more of a pro-racist film than the anti-racism message it was actually trying to get across to the viewer. The first half of American History X is extremely racist and comes very close to glorifying some of the horrific things that Derek does. This film also plays on a lot of negative racial stereotypes such as that all black people are in gangs or are drug dealers and have some kind of firearm. American History X however by the end of the film completely condemns all of Derek's previous radical beliefs and racist ideals. All of Derek and Danny's previous friends come off to the audience as ignorant, confused, angry people that have no real idea of what they are talking about or what they are fighting. I can't see why anyone would be tolerant to blind hate just because of skin color or ethnicity after seeing American History X. I can see that this film does touch on how racism has made its way into our popular culture. I don't know if this was intentional or not but this film shows a lot of situations and conversations that many people have all the time. People still talk about Rodney King, affirmative action and illegal immigration problems; these are things that will continue to be popular issues because of how relevant they continue to be. I agree with Beck's statements that the flashbacks were there to show the brutality and pure hate that Derek previously had inside of him. It’s the Derek that has gone through the changes of prison and life that the audience will put judgment on. He now supposedly knows what is racist and should try to get Danny to change his life too.

Posted by hove0107 at 8:20 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

As I was rewatching Boyz N' The Hood their was a conversation that reminded me of some lyrics from Sister Act I. They go like this,

"If you want to be somebody,
If you want to go somewhere,
You better wake up and pay attention."

These same lyrics have brought Derek to his very own feet of who he wants to be. In American History X, I found that Derek was pushed around from the start of his life through the words of wisdom of his father. He from there developed that very same hatred, that the world has started to come to. He believed that the African Americans were outsiders to his white supremacist environment that he lives in. He explains this through his actions of killing the African American men that were trying to steal his car.

Later, we find that a lot of people do end up learning through example. We see this in the eyes of Danny when he speaks into the camera to Seth, "I hate anyone not Protestant. They are a burden to the race and they are the enemy. I hate the fact that it is cool to be black." We find that this bothers Derek, because as he found out...He had to wake up.

I find that Derek as himself took a step back when he was in prison and watched how everything in a society worked. Yes, we have people fighting for our backs at all times, but if you mess with the wrong people they will come back to bight you in the butt. Both Derek and Danny found this out the hard way, because the hate groups were responsible for Derek's shower incident as well as Danny's death in the bathroom. The thing was that these two really didn't do anything wrong except for embarrass his white supremacist group in public and look at the wrong person the wrong way. Yes, these are both extreme cases and "The black characters in each of these films are depicted in stereotypical fashion," we still see trends in the gang violence in places like LA, New York and other parts of the world. It's the hate that people need wake up and see, because if they don't it will only continue.

Posted by carr0445 at 8:15 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

When I first saw "American History X" several years ago, I felt a sense of unease. It wasn't clear to me until midway through the film that the intention of the filmmakers was to debunk racism, rather than support it. The ending of the film also left me with that uneasy feeling. It wasn't until we began to discuss it in class that I was able to verbalize the discomfort. "American History X" is a racist movie. I would agree with Beck's assessment on the film. Derek is portrayed as a hero. The scene on the basketball court where the skinheads are playing for rights to the court against the African-Americans, the musical score inexplicably rises in triumph when Derek and his group win. Derek's racist diatribes are mixed with just enough statistics to be compelling and persuasive. It strikes me as illogical that so much screen time would be devoted to Derek's reasoning when the film is trying to convey the opposite meaning. Derek's body is also framed in disturbing way by the camera, especially after his murder of the two gang members who tried to break into his car. The camera swept over his muscular, chisled body in an adoring, almost pornographic way. The look of pride on his face was probably meant to convey Derek's insanity; however it makes him appear like a hero. The anti-racist sentiment of the film is much more subdued and less flashy, which means it is less likely to stay with the average movie-goer. It is unlikely that audiences of a mainstream film are going to analyze each movie they see in the way we do as part of this class. The message is lost, and the racist attitudes are left behind.

Posted by Melissa Green at 7:52 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

American History X, the story of ex-neo-Nazi racist Derek and his brother, Danny, can be viewed as an anti-racist film and a perpetuator of racism. The film, by letting the viewer into the world of skinheads, can serve as proof of how terrible racism is. By the graphic details of murders, hate speech and white power and Nazi images, the reality of hate can be seen. The white supremacists are extreme and powerful. They personify what modern America is trying to exorcise from society. The film, from an anti-racism reading, strives to show how wrong the skinheads are in their ideologies. Beck buttresses this as he argues, “The horror of the neo-Nazi movement are offered as warnings and as an object of condemnation� (21). Yet, as Beck continues, “they are also presented in exciting images of power, passion and self-righteousness� (21). These passionate and exciting images could, unintentionally, perpetuate racism in those already inclined toward such behavior. The characters in the film are likeable, even though they are extremely hateful. Derek is educated and strong-willed. Danny is young and impressionable. Seth is comedic and absurd. As discussed in class, the audience may not be reading into the characters as deeply as necessary to see the evil behind the attractive front.

In addition, the majority of African Americans in the film are not well-developed characters. Most are shown either committing a crime or condoning such activity. The brothers’ father is killed by a black gang member. A black basketball player cheats during the game. Three black men try to steal Derek’s truck. A black youth beats up a white kid in the school’s bathroom, and the same one ends up shooting Danny. The audience could see these characters as simply paying a price for wrong-doing. The rolls also preserve black stereotypes. Only the non-white victims of the grocery store raid, Dr. Sweeney and the black inmate who befriends Derek do not commit any crimes on screen. Still, these rolls serve as pieces in Derek and Danny’s story, rather than full characters of their own.

Danny’s murder at the end of the film, could provide a legitimate argument that their lives are without meaning. Whether or not Derek and Danny are racists, violence will still occur. There would seem to be nothing the characters can do to stop it, which could further strengthen racist tendencies. Viewers who see the film as nihilistic may assume Derek goes back to his skinhead ways. Conversely, Danny’s murder could act as a symbol of misunderstanding, leading to strong efforts to stop such acts from happening again. This reading gives the brothers’ lives much meaning. They represent both the victims and the perpetrators of violence and hate, but change is possible and important. Therefore, Derek would not revert back to his racist self.

Posted by Candice Dehnbostel at 7:47 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In his article "Your Worst Nightmare the Siege, American History X, and Our View of Enemies, Foreign and Domestic," Beck discusses the role of a villain in film, and states that "If the threat is not powerful enough, close enough to our deep shames, fears, and anxieties, we may become indifferent to it. Worse than worse, we may even laugh at it." (Beck, 20) The villains in American History X exemplify this, demonstrating extreme examples of racism that is most definitely present in society today, even if not to such an extreme degree. I do not see this as a negative aspect of the film. The character Derek is initially displayed as a villain and later becomes a hero. By expressing the former villain as the new hero, it can be argued that the filmmakers mistakenly give merit to his former racist actions. I disagree with this idea that the perpetuates the racism that it claims to reveal. Rather, it shows how a man, confused by his surroundings and the situations he was forced to encounter as a child, exhibits the most extreme degrees of racism only to later realize how awful his actions were. The images in the movie are not intended to scare viewers of other races, but rather to acknowledge the problems that still face society today. They succeed tremendously in this, however, leave it up to the viewers to solve the problems. It does little to provide solutions, but is very successful in establishing that something needs to change

Posted by marsh401 at 7:33 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Despite the fact that there is no biological justification for racism, the concept is still pervasive in our current society. Genetic studies have found that there is actually more variation within “race� populations than between them, yet the concepts of “whiteness� and “race superiority� have been used as the justification for “the extreme economic exploitation and oppression of indigenous, African, and Asian peoples in the U.S.� (Madison, 100) While Derek ultimately has a change of heart and realizes the error of his ways, it is only with the help of Dr. Sweeney that he reaches this realization. I would therefore infer that this film isn’t too “Eurocentric� in suggesting that important changes in race relations can only come from white people. I think the final scene of the movie where Danny quotes President Lincoln’s first inaugural address says it best: “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory... ...will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.�

Posted by ande4849 at 7:27 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This week in class we watched the film American History X, which tells the story of two brothers; Derek (the older of the two) and Danny. Derek becomes a neo-Nazi racist after his father was shot while trying to put out a fire, by a black drug dealer. Derek eventually goes to jail for brutally killing two black men that were breaking into his car. In jail Derek folds laundry with a black inmate whom he scorns in the beginning but eventually warms up to and even lets go of his neo-Nazi views as a result of him. Derek leaves jail a new man and goes back home only to find his brother following in his old footsteps. By telling Danny about his jail experience he promptly changes his view as well. The film closes with Derek holding Danny’s dead body, which had earlier been shot by a black student that he had stood up to earlier in the year.

American History X has been viewed as an anti-racist film and a racist film. I think that it’s a little bit of both. This film helps show the brutality of racism and the unrealistic views that people hold that are racist. Derek’s realization that his racist views haven’t brought him anything but anger and violence also shows viewers the anti-racist message. The part of this film that I thought showed a pro-racism message was when Derek was being hand-cuffed after he had brutally killed two black men. The film glorified this moment, showing Derek smiling, with a golden glow around his head standing in a position that signifies Jesus while he was nailed to the cross. As Beck puts it in his “Your Worst Nightmare: The Siege, American History X, and our Views of Enemies Foreign and Domestic� reading, “The horrors of the neo-Nazi movement are offered as a warning and as an object of condemnation, but they are also presented in exciting images of power, passion, and self righteousness.�

Posted by clay0115 at 7:04 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

American History X is a very moving and powerful film that, as any film of importance with regard to social issues should, has left many viewers with divided responses. Some hold that Tony Kaye’s film is just as guilty of perpetuating the issues of racism that it (as others say) intends to reveal for the notice and consideration of others. I do agree with Beck when he says, “although the [hero] image is the one offered for the audience’s approval, the former [villainous] many well have the greater impact on the audience… what they condemn in words is made attractive visually on the screen� (21). I think that in the context of a film, it is difficult to avoid this conundrum. Evil creates conflict, and conflict is interesting. Unfortunately this can serve to create a mixed message, when the more interesting side is the evil one. However, I think that this inevitability is representative of the choice that people have to make in regards to situations such as presented in American History X. Despite the captivation of early Derek, anyone with a shred of human decency would agree that reformed Derek has the right attitude, indicating people’s need to be conscientious of their actions and avoid being entranced by the conflict of evil.

I disagree with the Finleys when they say that American History X sends a message that racism and hate crimes are only committed by organized groups. I think that it takes someone with very little depth and insight to see the portrayal of Derek’s involvement with the neo-Nazi group as an indication that such is the only situation in which racism is prevalent. I would ask the Finleys if their take on World War II and Hitler’s inexplicable agenda is that anti-Semitism was confined solely to the Third Reich. The lessons given in the film are applicable to any situation and any level of racism, as long as one is able to identify the symbolism.

Posted by dunh0037 at 6:37 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

American History X presents an interesting, and often conflicting view of racism in America. While the audience members will experience clear disapproval of a scene like Derek's early grocery store raid because of the attention paid to innocents, scenes like the basketball game are more hazy. Finley's article says that, "Derek has honor..and the hero makes the game point and the blacks are driven from the courts." While one might also comment on the honor of the blacks holding up their end of the agreement and actually leaving, Derek is made to be the hero, reclaiming land that seems rightfully theirs. Yet, Derek, here pictured with such valor, cannot represent a hero for the story. The conflict between Derek's neo-nazi past and his future after prison has not even come into the story yet; so it becomes difficult to claim moral ground when the main character is sometimes egregious, sometimes heroic, sometimes despicable, and sometimes logical. In the confusion of these traits we can see simultaneously from our view as the audience, looking on a new person, and as his brother Danny who worships him.

Posted by aretz008 at 6:02 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This week’s past film American History X was the most powerful movie we have seen as to date. The movie was chalk full of violence, hate, and even change. Derek and Danny both fell into the trap and under the spell of Cameron and his hated. Cameron has instilled hate into the kids of the community that are rejected and sick of being beaten by the other races such as the Hispanics and Blacks. These kids are led to believe that all other races besides White Protestants are a burden to society as a whole. They idolize White supremacy and the oppression and purge of the other races in their community. Derek, after brutally killing to black gang members by shooting both and forcing one to “bite the curb,� was sentenced to three years in jail. The years in jail proved to be a positive experience for Derek, for he was soon able to see through the “bull shit� Cameron had led him to believe. Derek realized his beliefs were wrong and chose to change his lifestyle and that of his family. Yet, as he was released from prison he was soon asked to return to his old friends to help put an end to the violence between the skin heads and the other races. The tragedy of Danny’s death at the end of the movie is a powerful one. The black kid that shot him in the bathroom simply did it because Danny had stood up to him earlier. It is a tragic circle of violence and murders that keep it all going between these groups. One cannot just stop and allow the other to “win.�

Posted by mcgui149 at 5:44 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

American History X was a strong anti-racism film that shows its audience that people are a product of their environment. American History X however uses racist acts and symbols to make its point. In the article L&P Finley argue that American History X depicts hatred as a group phenomenon and that rednecks are depicted as the worst possible racist losers (233). I do not agree with this statement because if the producer would have used an African American hate group then it would have been the other way as African Americans the worst possible racist losers. Derek became a product of his environment for white males to hate blacks because of how they were treated. It goes both ways too African Americans hated whites for their own reasons. Life changing events likes Derek’s father being killed by in a black neighborhood by a black man on shape children’s view the world, and in Derek’s case the hard ache of losing his father became his obsession. Cameron became Derek’s father figure and used Derek along with other children to create this white hate group.
Aside from the readings and class discussion I think that people need to quit labeling everything racist. Racism depends on each person point of view and people need to realize that color makes no difference. People need to understand that people are a product of their environment; Derek was raped by a white male in prison and also hated by his white hate group who admired his earlier in the movie. This proves to me that this white hate group did not care what color you were, it depended on what your beliefs were, if your not with them your against them. This also goes for African Americans gangs if you didn’t adhere to their beliefs then they don’t like you. Sweeny said in the movie that you are not born with racism it’s learned so if you can learn it you can unlearn it. Try to find a positive message in all movies and take it for what its worth, too many people over analyze films.

Posted by towar003 at 5:22 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

American History X is a very powerful anti-racism movie, its my second viewing and I believe its a film that should be viewed by all. I have lived a pretty sheltered life and have not had to deal with many of the issues we have studied in the class. I know few relatives that fought in the Vietnam war, the counter-coulture did not affect me in any way that I know of, I've never had to deal with growing up in an urban/ghetto setting as seen in Boyz in the Hood, and I've never known or had dealings with white suppremists as seen in American History X. I've seen all these movies before and know all this is out there via various media outlets, but I've never personally had to deal with these things in my day to day life. My life touches these things daily, I am sure, but not in a way that is overtly noticable.

As Danny comes to grips with his past and the hatred in his life, he quotes someone with the statement that hatred is baggage. I couldn't agree more. Its just a waste of time and never gets the hater anywhere except further into more and deeper hatred. I would like to think that most racism and hatred is a product of poverty and despair. Unfortunately their are many in this world that are rich and powerful that have these same racist beliefs. The skinheads as seen in American History X do not depict the worst of our worlds racism. They are wrong, but at least they are out in the open with their hatred. They are mostly naive, unintelligent youth that have been brainwashed into their beliefs. The group gives them acceptance. To me, the scariest people are those that are the hidden leaders of theses groups. They use their intelligence and money to lead and fund these groups while keeping their hands clean. As seen with the role of Cameron in American History X, the ring leaders, those that fund the group, those that are behind the scenes spewing their hatred and brainwashing naive youth to carry out their hatred, they are the ones we should be most scared of.

It was sad that Danny got caught up in the group and ultimately lost his life because of it. Did his death cause Derek to lose his ways and go back to his hating? I hope not, but emotions can do weird things to a persons thinking. It would be easy for that to be the case. In my ending he stays strong and helps others get out of the situation that caused him so much pain. I think he made it and was influential in his community and helped many of the youth in his area to get back on track.

Posted by bela0003 at 2:42 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I was sort of frustrated and intrigued by this week's class discussion on American History X. I was surprised by some of the responses to the survey we took, but more surprised to hear the positions some of my peers were willing to defend.
First, I generally consider myself to be anti-racist and my beliefs are such that I don't think anyone should be treated in a derogatory manner because of attributes they cannot control. I am also a liberal thinker, but I can in no way condone moral relativism because I think in the extreme, it always leads to dangerous territory. I was surprised by the statement that white supremacists probably have reasons for feeling the way they do, but feel like this is an underdeveloped position as demonstrated by Anthony's response that pedophiles have reasons for what they do and a litany of others (Hitler honestly thought he was improving the world, etc.). Moral relativism absent any base side constraint to protect for some basic level of respect inherently allows and endorses concepts like genocide because of the individualistic nature.
Second, I was surprised by the argument that because other countries don't respect Americans, we shouldn't respect people from those countries in the U.S. To equate individual U.S. citizens with the political and social conditions of their homeland is ridiculous and amounts to a horrendous synecdoche of accusing one tiny part of representing the whole.
Finally, I was frustrated with the lack of acknowledgement of the intersection that various institutions of minorities that influence their lives. Race intersects with class, gender, sexual orientation, personal history and so much more than just the one-dimensional black vs. white debate. Framing the argument in absolutes (i.e. you either are or are not racist) makes the solution simple, but recognizing the complexity of individual circumstances forces us to confront underlying and belief structures and question their existence.

Posted by vieir013 at 2:39 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In the end, I do not think that Derek will return to his former, racist self, even after what had happened to Danny. Derek had spent three years in jail, slowly changing over time, seeing how any race can be, good or bad. Derek did not change over night. If he had changed over night, then I think it would be eaiser for him to turn back into his former self. Since he did not chnage over night and experienced horrible actions while in prison, by those white males, he will not go back to hating and believing in white supremecy. Danny could have easily been killed by a person of any race. If the movie would have continued, I think it would have gone down the path of Derek trying to change the minds of those who are racist. I think he would have been successful with it too. Although, I do not think he would have been 100% successful with every person, but since he did have the common thoughts of racism, it would be easier for Derek to connect with others than those who were never racist. Derek was a great public speaker while he was talking to those in the racist group, he could do just as well talking to those who have yet to see that someone who is not of the same race is still just as equal.

Posted by woehl007 at 1:38 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I have seen American History X once before, but did not really see all of the things I did this time around. One topic I have been thinking about ever since last week’s film is the idea that human life has no meaning – nihilism. Last week’s film seemed to have more of a nihilistic view than this week. Last week, we saw how the “hood� portrays nothing more than black-on-black crime and the murder of black youth – a seemingly endless cycle. The film this week, however, held deeper meaning and brought us closer to the other side of the cycle of violence. We followed the lives of Derek and Danny and saw the way in which the murder of two black men landed Derek in prison. Derek was the ultimate skinhead and truly believed, with his heart and soul, in “White Power� and the ethnic cleansing of the “parasites that don’t belong in our country�. In prison, however, he saw and learned things that were completely contradictory to the way he lived his life. He came to realize that the “White Power� vision was all based on lies and bullshit. Before Derek went to prison, Danny was already beginning to follow in his footsteps. When Derek was sentenced to prison, Danny looked up to him even more and continued his life as a racist, skinhead. When Derek was released and came home to tell his younger brother that he could no longer be involved with the skinhead gang, Danny becomes angry with Derek and does not understand. I did not think that Danny would comprehend what his brother was trying to illustrate to him, however, once Derek told Danny of what he had learned in prison, Danny really seemed to understand and was starting to come around. When Danny was shot and killed at the end of the movie, Derek was screaming, “No! No! No!� from what I believed to be because Derek knew that Danny would change his ways as Derek had, and wanted nothing more than to keep his family safe. At that point, Derek realized that it was too late – he was too late and it was his fault for Danny turning out the way he did. I do not think that Danny’s life was without meaning or that his death was in any way nihilistic. I also do not believe that Derek would go back to his racist ways after his brother’s death either. Derek changed his ways because he realized that everything he had learned about “White Power� was a lie. It had nothing to do with the violence he already knew existed. The death of his brother just further supports his newfound self.

-Hasti Fashandi

Posted by fash0016 at 1:18 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I whole heartedly agree with Finley’s assertion that films like American History X depicts race related crimes as something that arises only from a group mentality and creates potentially dangerous stereotypes that puts a distinctive face of hate that can leave potential victims without the tools necessary to identify the many places that racism can come from. To paint the picture of racism as someone with swastika tattoos and a shaved head can blind people that racism can live in the heart of a house wife or a businessman and can incite people to but their guard down to people who don’t look like people in these depictions that permeate the mass media. I think that films like this do make people believe that if we crack down legally on racist groups like the Ku Klux Klan we can eliminate the problem of racism, by giving an epicenter for people to focus their attention on there are a million other places that don’t get addressed and are allowed to grow and created a new from of institutionalized form of racism. To focus our attention on the most vocal version of this problem makes the underlying problems easily ignored which can case extreme problems in the future.

Posted by swanx058 at 1:17 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

American History X is not racist in any way. It is a film that depicts the social status and involvement of a "skin head" within a community. This movie revolves around the life of Derek, a gentlemen that confused on why his father was killed by a black man. His fathers death ignited his rage and hatred towards blacks and is later adopted by the neo-Nazis. In the beginning, he commits a brutal act of murder amongst two black teenagers and arrested. For three years, he is locked up in diverse prison where he undergoes a revolution. Being forced to be exposed to the diverse culture in the prison, he not only starts to find the answers to the unanswered questions, but also finds himself. American History X shows hatred acts Derek has committed to show not only his little brother, but the audience that change is possible. Bernard Bark states, "The skinhead protagonist is transformed by his prison experience into a wise, loving, redeemed figure who signals his transformation by reuniting and healing his tormented family." This film is not racist, it shows the power of hate and it can effect the human brain. We witness two sides of race in American History X; white hating black and black hating white. How do you stop hate when it is a circulating problem? Towards the end of the film the police ask Derek if he can talk and influence to the young neo-Nazis that hate is a sickness as the only symptom is a confused mind. Racism is spread by many forces, such as pop culture. For example, you hear a song in the movie being sung by Derek's old friend with explicit, racial lyrics; even the concert being held is promoting racism. Spreading hate and abolishing diversity is going to remain strong as racist songs become stronger with its lyrics that will brainwash and infect the confused mind.The only way to stop racism is to stop listening to racist songs, and to look up to a role model, such as Derek, to guide a young person in the right direction.

Posted by Anthony Zerka at 1:12 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I believe American History X was a strong anti-racism film, even though it took a number of racist acts and symbols to make its point. Finley and Finley argue that films such as American History X depict hatred as a group phenomenon and that rednecks are depicted as the worst possible racist losers (233). I do not think this is the case at all in this film. Derek became a product of the world in which he lived and by the choices he made, good and bad. He was raised in a predominantly white suburban neighborhood in the stereotypical “nuclear� family by a racist father killed on the job in a black neighborhood. Life changing events of this caliber on children shape how they view the world, and in Derek’s case the despair of losing his father became his obsession. Cameron became Derek’s father figure as a result, aided by the fact that his mother was weak and submissive and therefore had little influence in his life.

Yes, the role of blacks vs. whites in American History X could be viewed as stereotypical, but the focus of the film was to show how wrong the thinking of radical white hate groups was. This would not have been possible without some of the negative interaction between blacks and whites in the bathroom and prison scenes. At the same time, the positive interaction was equally as important, otherwise it is quite possible that Derek would have ended up dead. His metamorphosis was fueled by the idea that whites were just as capable of being amoral as anyone else.

I do not like the idea that Derek should or could be viewed as a “hero�. It is hard not to feel sympathetic to his situation after he comes to the revelation that what he had done was wrong as Finley and Finley acknowledge (233), yet it is hard to forget that he committed brutal murder earlier in the film. The end of the film shows us that he is about to make amends for his actions, but leaves this idea undeveloped when his younger brother Danny is killed. How Derek responds to this new tragedy will ultimately answer the question of nihilism as a violent response will take him down the same road he walked before.

Posted by char0018 at 11:56 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The article I read was written by Timothy Brown, titled Subcultures, Pop Music and Politics: Skinheads and "Nazi Rock" in England and Germany was a very interesting article that discussed how music was influential in politics and the formation of “Nazi Rock� in Germany. The author first talks about how skinheads in Germany and black and Jamaican immigrants all listened to the same sort of music. It was a mix between black soul music, Jamaican beats, and what we call today rock music. The author focused on two main points of how music affected the politics in Germany. The first was subcultures began to split off of the ‘skinhead’ group. A divide in the people began, and in the music you could hear right or left wing politics respectively. It was from beginning that the two groups became more radical and the formation of Nazi Rock happened.
The second was a change in skinhead style. This came with the changing music, but what used to be the look of a hard working class person began to turn into a much more radical form of “punk.� This transition between somewhat moderate and more radical in dress and in music started the formation of radical right rock music.
I thought this article was very interesting considering we just watched American History X and I could see this in action. I know we weren’t able to really see the transition in the film, but there was definitely a Nazi rock essence in the movie. Derek even had a swastika tattooed on his chest. I think this article gives us an idea of why Nazi politics was so well accepted in Germany. We always talk in class about how influential music is with counterculture and this is the perfect example of how music molds the minds of its listeners. The radical beliefs that came from the Nazi’s began in the music they listened too. The rock music started neutral, but slowly began to show sides of right politics, and then slowly began to show radical right politics. It’s listeners didn’t even know they were subject to listening to this until they already believed it because it happened slowly. I think this is an amazing attribute to the power and influence of music.

Posted by elmxx014 at 10:36 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Anthony put a review up on the board after the film that stated that American History X seemed to only glorify the white power culture, only to say 'It's not okay' in the last few minutes. I can understand why he may have thought this, as Danny's change occurs in a matter of hours. However, from early on in the film, you can tell that Derek is against the movement once he is released from prison. The focus of the movie is Derek's attempts at undoing all the damage he has done to his friends, and most important, his brother.

I dispute the fact that this glorifies the white power movement because of a quote from Dr. Sweeney. In prison, he asks Derek 'Has anything you've ever done made your life better?' Derek then realizes that all the white power movement has been for nothing. They haven't changed anything (especially for the better), and all it's done has gotten him thrown in prison for three years while his family struggles to get by. The movie rarely casts a 'good light' on the skinheads. In class, it was brought up that the movie negatively portrays most black people, and the scene on the basketball court was discussed. Supposedly the only person playing 'dirty' was the black man who elbowed Derek in the mouth. However, if you watch how Seth plays during the game, he is just as guilty of blatant fouling - he spends most of his time shoving other people around. So, while the movie definitely focuses on the skinhead culture, it does not in any way glorify it. Instead, the movie portrays a man trying to undo the damage he's done to his family and friends.

Jeff Batts

Posted by batts002 at 9:27 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

American History X definitely perpetuates the racism that it claims to reveal in scenes such as, the destruction of the Korean grocery store and the basketball game deciding whether the Whites or the Blacks control the courts. This film intentionally shows how racism can creep into popular culture because it wants viewers to understand the destructive and harsh reality of racism in our society. I disagree that the villainous characters have a greater impact on the audience because the whole point of the film is to discredit the actions of the villain and to glorify that villainous characters redemption into heroism.

It is naive to think that one can destroy racism by cracking down on overtly racist groups because they are not the only ones committing hate crimes. The film even shows this in the scene where Derek’s father is preaching about how equal opportunity employment laws allow under-qualified minorities to steal jobs from more qualified Whites and that this perpetuates reverse racism.

This film does glorify the White hero, because instead of Blacks making the difference in the fight against racism, we find Derek Vineyard, the former leader of a very racist White power group, to be the man working to end the hate. We end up sympathizing with him even though he has done terrible things because he reforms himself and tries to mend the damage caused by racism. The film also perpetuates the stereotypical Black male by depicting them all as either gangbangers or just plain stupid. Some examples of this are the car thieves, who are assumed to be gangbangers, as well as the Black kids in the bathroom scene, who are also depicted as gangbangers. Derek’s work partner in the laundry room is shown as stupid because he has accepted his ridiculous sentence for dropping a television on a cop’s foot and makes funny faces while he tries to get Derek to open up to him.

American History X is a bit of a nihilistic film, but not entirely. Although Danny is killed before he can do any good deeds with his new found ideals, Derek is helping in the fight against racism. I don’t believe Derek will revert back to his former racist self because he has already realized that it is not all Black people that he hates only people. He has come to realize that it is foolish to hold the actions of a few people to an entire race.

Posted by nels5175 at 1:22 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In the reading, Finley criticized the "American History X" as sending the message that the the only people who engage to hate crimes are those who shave their heads and have swastika tattoos, or who parade around wearing
white sheets and burn crosses. I disagree with this criticism of the film. I don't think the film sends out a message saying only people who show symbols of racism on their appearance are the only racists. I think what the film wants to say is that racism can take place at a very low level, like at a family discussion of "Native Son", however, it can be brought to the level of mass destruction from hatred and grows out to be one's idealism. I don't think the depiction of hate groups as the source of racism allows viewers to assume that if we just crack down on overtly racist groups we would no long suffer from racism. Those hate groups in the film acts as symbols of racism as a whole in the country. Those groups let the audience understand that racism is separation between the people, and they separate themselves when there is racism. Those groups symbolize individuals in the United States. Hatred makes them fell different and frustrated, then they would grow out to be more and more destructive, just like an individual would. Each and everyone's action has influence and consequences on the society that he or she lives in. After all, a group stands for each individuals. In order to have peace, each person needs to put out the fire of hatred within themselves, just like the groups needs to realize that the fire is burning them instead of doing them any goods.

Posted by truon052 at 12:45 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This film seems to revolve around the issues of White Power and the negative effects. I found the scene where Derek and Danny's father was knocking the idea of reading "black" books and what they had to get rid of, the other perfectly good books. This small conversation, followed by his death seems to add up that both his sons would become white supremacists. I also found this scene interesting because there was very little input from the mother and daughter. They seemed to just sit there silently and not disagree. Women in the past few weeks have seemed to have been ignored in general. They seem to have no effect on the race struggle in any of these films. While this was addressed last week in Boyz 'N the Hood, is was not addressed in the other two films. These women are just bystanders in this entire struggle. While it appears that Derek's mother and sister do not agree, and his girlfriend does, at no point are any of their actual feelings clearly showed in making a difference.
With Finley discussing that these crimes are the product of different groups, I agree. This is evident when Derek first goes to prison and takes off his shirt. He says that he was going to show himself and let them take him in. He becomes part of a group and that group stays together. Then when he separates from the group he is left alone, thanks to another individual. When it is just individuals in this film they seem to have a since of protection. At the end when his brother dies, it comes from one group killing another.
Looking at who they believe is racist, it is also clumped together. If one is then they all are. Of course with what had started as the belief of his father, he was not racist and then at the dinner table it becomes clear what he believes. Aside from this, I think this film shows that as a group, people a racist, alone they are just who they are, talking to someone else. These groups are something that will not go away. With this film saying that they are only racist as a group, they are extremely mistaken. Taking down groups would not "cure" racism. It is the individuals in these groups that spread racism.

Posted by lile0005 at 12:28 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I'm a little disappointed with the willingness of others on here to readily label this film as racist. I saw the same film but brought away a different, but more importantly positive message. It's possible to cite the "curbstomp scene" or any others, dinner table, etc-- and bring away a sense of horror that overrides the overall messages. It's understandable to feel this way in our culture that has conditioned us to react with tears and adrenaline to scenes like this. But at some point the chemicals fade and it is necessary to assimilate what you just saw with what you believe. It's easy to just label the film as racist.

At the end of the film, with everything that happened I felt that the screenwriter/director did us a favor by showing first that these people, the skinheads, the black gangs are a product of their environment. And secondly that through their suffering we may take away a sense of deadly urgency to resolve these problems. Their character development , and insight may become ours so that we may better understand -- and then resolve.

This relates directly into what will become a historical speech given by Senator Obama recently. Obama's speech was trancending because it was "on one hand this""On the other hand that" which showed great leadership. I've always believed that leadership is bring people together to debate important issues. More often that not our civil discussions are influenced by talking heads on the tv screen. These debates never lead anywhere because either side seem unwilling to give even an inch to concend a single point for fear that they will lose everything. Where there are perfect comprimisies as answers, those are solved quickly, the difficulties are when both sides must lose a little to move foward. This will be easier if we abandon our faction mentality.

Posted by gonza275 at 12:16 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Is this film too “Eurocentric� suggesting that the only important changes in race relations should
or could come from white people?
Pat Buchanan wrote in a recent book. “Robert Putnam one of the world’s most influential political scientist’s recent research shows that the more diverse a community is, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust anyone from their next door neighbor to the mayor. The core message…was that, ‘in the presence of diversity, we hunker down,’ he said. ‘We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.’ Prof. Putnam found trust was lowest in Los Angeles, ‘the most diverse human habitation in human history.’� “Is diversity a strength? In the ideology of modernity, yes. But history teaches otherwise. For how can racial diversity be a strength when racial diversity was behind the bloodiest war in U.S. history and has been the most polarizing issue among us ever since? All Americans believe slavery was evil and the denial of equal justice under the law was wrong. But because they were wrong, does that make what we are doing-inviting the whole world to come to America-right or wise?� He cites another columnist named “Leo�: “At UCLA, racially separate graduations have become the norm. ‘The core reason,’ he writes, ‘is the obvious one.’ ‘On campus, assimilation is a hostile force, the domestic version of American imperialism. On many campuses, identity-group training begins with separate freshman orientation programs for non-whites, who arrive earlier and are encouraged to bond before the first Caucasian freshmen arrive. Some schools have separate orientations for gays as well. Administrations tend to foster separatism by arguing that bias is everywhere, justifying double standards that favor identity groups. Leo concludes on a note of despair, ‘As in so many areas of national life, the preposterous is now normal.� Finally, Buchanan cites an article by Cal Thomas in which he reported an interesting fact: Between June 2005 and June 2006 200,000 British citizens (the equivalent of a million Americans) left their country for good, as more than a half million legal immigrants and unknown thousands of illegals entered… Thomas wrote; ‘life in Britain has become unbearable for them.’ There is the lawlessness and the constant threat of Muslim terror, but also the loss of sense of Britishness, exacerbated by the growing refusal of public schools to teach the history and culture or the nation to the next generation. What it means to be British has been watered down in a plague of political correctness that has swept the country faster than hoof and mouth disease. Officials says they do not wish to ‘offend’ others.�
Given these facts it kind of makes one rethink the questions posed for this weeks blog. I almost wonder if the only race relations that ever come about consistently that are what we might call “progressive� are championed mostly by whites only and of course some blacks in America (as somewhat represented by the principal of the high school). I have never seen or heard of any non-western country that really believes in multi-culturalism in the sense of equality and that is willing to really integrate and balance their society racially by use of techniques like affirmative action, etc. But then again, I wonder if it is really worth it from a white perspective. I almost wonder if it’s not because of our belief in fairy tales and make believe. My Chinese teacher told me once years ago that there is a stereotype in Asia that white people are naive. I wonder if that is not somewhat justified given the facts listed above. What I liked about the film is like these citations in Pat Buchanan’s book, they take place in L.A. The loss of community that Robert Putnam talks about is demonstrated in the film. There is a diatribe which talks about the issue in some detail about how the community has been “taken over� by Hispanics, Asians, and blacks and the loss of community and trust that comes along with it. The whole story is about how a white family is the victim of racial violence and how they initially cope with it rather negatively, but in the end “rise above it all,� only to become the victims of more racial violence. I think this is a remarkable reflection of the Asian stereotype about whites being naive and giving up their identity politics and believing in a fairy tale like every culture in the world is equal and becoming a victim as a result of letting their guard down. This is a terribly common phenomenon in society. I have yet to see people of any color consistently live up to PC multiculturalism in the western world at least when compared to whites efforts to be self hating and self castigating.

Posted by dahme012 at 12:11 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

American History X is by far one of the best films i've watched in this semester. Obviously there are lots of hate and racism issues in the movie, but also the film illustrates how the black and the white community can get along if they look at their cultures from the other community's perspectives. The only reason that Derek hated the African American is because his father was murdered by them and before that happened, he didn't have any conflict between him and the black community. Derek thought it was the "right thing" to hate the black community, but his thoughts have changed after he experienced his life in prison, which was full of African Americans. His feelings towards the blacks changed because of this one African American that he met in prison, who was sent to prison for 6 years for just stealing a TV, which changed Derek's thoughts and feelings for the black community. Derek's brother, Danny, was also another perosn who was against the black community, but after he listened to what Derek had to say about the white and the black community, he also started to look at the blacks in a different way. However, at the end of the movie, Danny was murdered by one of the black teenagers at his school and I wonder if this incident changed Derek's thoughts towards the African American community? For Derek, it would had been really hard to accept the reality, but I think his thoughts on black community would have had remained the same because he now knows how the white and the black culture react to each other. From one of the readings, Beck says that the white community was "reacting to the changing, complex, multicultural world with a hostile subculture that seems alarmingly un-American". I think the white community was scared of being taken over by the foreigners and that's why there were sonflicts between the white and the black communities. American History X showed a lot of different things that showed what "equality" is and also illustrated that we are all just the same "human beings".

Posted by katay007 at 11:19 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

American History X was a movie unlike any other. It claims to revel racism and how it effects the society in which the children live. However, I believe it perpetuates the racism it claims to reveal. I believe this because in the movie I was confused at times about who was against whom. I know that there was a group of students who were led by Derek and believed in white power. Also we see groups of black students together, like in the bathroom scene when the boy was being harassed in the beginning of the film. Furthermore Derek takes no mercy when two black men try to break into his car, and the young black student shows no mercy in the final bathroom scene when Danny is shot and killed. These two scenes in particular show the prevalence of racism and how deeply people dislike the other group. They are willing to go as far as to kill another person because they are a different race then themselves. Had these situations taken place with a person of the same race as the killer I doubt anyone would have ended up dead.

Contradicting this, is the shower scene in the jail when other white men rape Derek. This is the first time in the movie we really see people of the same ethnicity battling each other. Also, the guard in this scene closes the door to the room even though he knows what is happening inside. I don’t know that you call this racism, but it is showing how closed-minded people are to those with different beliefs then their own.

In Beck’s quote, “Although the [hero] image is the one offered for the audience’s
approval, the former [villainous] many well have the greater impact on the audience... what they condemn in words is made attractive visually on the screen.� He raises an interesting point. He claims that when we see Derek in the flashbacks of the film he is a more powerful character than in the present time. I agree with him. Although Derek is a better person in the present time his character has much less influence on the actions and thoughts of the other characters. His brother Danny is the person the movie really focuses around, and his brother changes him, but no one else seems to be affected by Derek’s change of mindset.

Posted by elmxx014 at 7:02 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I think this movie was anti-racism. Although there was a lot of racism coming from Derek and Danny’s side, the movie is about how Derek changed. If the leader of a skin head group can have his mind changed completely then it really shows that racism is stupid. The people he used to hate are now responsible for keeping him alive. I think that if everyone had an encounter with what they were afraid of or hated, they would understand and have a change of heart. If you look at the group that Derek created they are all a bunch of ignorant kids who can’t think for themselves. They don’t have good reason to hate minorities other than the fact that it gives them something to be pissed about. Hatred is a strong emotion, and when you don’t have any love in your life it’s easy to show your hate.
This is why kids turn to a group. You have a kid who isn’t getting much respect from anyone including their parents, so then when someone like Cameron treats you like an adult and respects you; you’re going to want to be a part of that. They could have been a group that hated flowers and it still would have had the same effect, kids that aren’t getting respected will follow a strong leader no matter what their beliefs. Even in the last scene when Danny gets shot, you can see the look of the kid that shot him and see how he immediately regrets it. He’s just a kid, all of them are.
So even though Danny gets shot by a black kid I don’t think Derek would ever go back to his old ways. He grew up; he is past the whole skin color thing. If there is any racism left in this country, which their obviously is due to the survey we took yesterday in class, it’s because people are ignorant and Derek preaches this after he gets out of jail, that’s why it’s anti racism.

Posted by robak003 at 6:57 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

American History X is an interesting film. It has been both touted as a moving anti-racism “must see� and as an example of how racism continually creeps its way into popular culture. I think both these characterizations are accurate to a degree. In this blog post, I am choosing to focus on why the film could be characterized as being an anti-racist film.

In Laura and Peter Finley’s paper titled The White Supremacist in Anti-Racist Films, they state, “Each film portrays white characters as the heroes in the struggle for racial equality, while showing black characters in stereotypical fashion.� Although in the context of their paper, this quote contradicts the characterization of American History X as a “must see anti-racist film�, I’d like to use it to support that very characterization.

If black society in today’s day and age is still legitimately being systematically suppressed, then it’s imperative for those that are suppressing to change their ways. In the movie, Derek is portrayed as being a “white hero�. The reason he is depicted as a hero in the movie is not because it’s hero-like to believe in equality but because he’s making a stand against the status quo defined by his community. The point being made is not that white people who believe in equality are heroes, but rather that it’s hero-like to stand in opposition to the racist status quo of your own community/peers. Because of this interpretation I believe that the characterization of American History X as a moving anti-racism “must see� is accurate.

Posted by John Erck at 6:34 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I agree and disagree with Finley’s criticism. I agree that this movie does depict hate crimes as being the result of organized groups and that he believes this film is sending the message that the only people who engage in hate crimes are those who shave their heads and have swastika tattoos, etc. But, this is only a part of one group that commits hate crimes. I believe that people who watch this movie know that these people aren’t the only ones involved in hate crimes. Yes, what Finley says is true, “Although to some extent it is true that many people who become involved in these organized hate groups fit the stereotype of a redneck, these films exaggerate that notion� (230), but obviously it exaggerates the notion because that’s the hate crime group that this movie is based on. I believe Tony Kaye (the director) wanted to emphasize just this particular hate crime, not that he is saying that this is the only group who engages in hate crimes.
I don’t believe this film gives false cues at all as to who could be racist. [Most of] America isn’t dense and they know or have experienced hate crimes from all different groups or individuals. This movie is just taking one particular group and focusing on them.
I think that older age viewers know that if we crack down on overtly racist groups that this would be a major positive impact on society but it would not eliminate racism. I think that younger age viewers would have somewhat of the same knowledge. This would obviously be a huge plus for society but no, it wouldn’t eliminate racism. Younger viewers can see racism all around them, in the most subtle ways and not necessarily in large groups.

Posted by ruff0046 at 5:47 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I strongly agree that American History X is what Madison deems an “anti-racist-white-hero� film (406). First, it maintains a “white hero� narrative primarily through Derek. The film justifies his racial attitudes early in the film by highlighting that what spurred his hate was largely because an African American man shot his father. In addition, the film is narrated around Derek’s story and his personal struggle with racial issues. We follow Derek’s story while he is incarcerated, befriends a “black� man, goes through a major transformation to become an advocate of peace and equality, and we watch his efforts to protect his family and improve life. Rarely ever is the viewer taken in depth into the perspective of any African American character. Also, just as the film started with Derek’s anguish through the story of his father, it ends in a similar fashion, with his brother’s murder by an African American boy. The film begins and ends with Derek’s suffering, struggles, and hardships with African Americans, and it touches only briefly on the possible causes as to why minorities behave differently from white norms. I feel this film is best described by Madison as “highlighting ‘white’ heroism, mark[ing] whiteness in crisis, resolv[ing] the crisis through a paternalistic white supremacist co-optation of anti-racist struggle, and provid[ing] a re-legitimating historical fiction supportive of the white back-lash against equality� (400).

Posted by riva0067 at 3:15 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

American History X, obviously, intentionally reveals how racism creeps into popular culture. This film used racism to make money. Racism is one of those things that will never go away. People are egotistical and single-minded, not everyone is, but many are and those that are teach their offspring to be the same. The film perpetuated this thought and took it to the next level. It did show that people can change sometimes too.
I agree with Beck when he talks about heroes and villains and how it is popular for audiences to enjoy the villain rather than the hero. Directors make the villains talk and act bad, but in the end portray them to the audiences as exciting and daring. They need to focus on what the youth of today get from such films and make the villains less appealing and the heroes more appealing.
Neo-Nazi skinheads are not the only ones who engage in hate crimes. This film does focus on the neo-Nazi skinheads who do engage in hate crimes. It is not a film about hate crimes across the board. It focuses on one group and tells the story of their struggles and violence against minorities and women of every race and color too. The director is not saying that this group is the only group who acts like this and is single-minded. Some people might get the impression that this film is saying that only white people are racists, but I did not get that from the film. Getting rid of all of the racists groups in society will not rid society of racism. Knowledge is power and we need to teach our children acceptance and diversity. We need to rid stereotypes and single-mindedness thinking. People teach other people, especially children, hate. They are not born racist or hateful, they are taught it.

Posted by hanl0083 at 3:03 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I do see how people can see American History X as promoting racism. The "hero" and the most developed character is Derek and we spend most of the film seeing him as a radical white supremacist. Only in the last part of the film does Derek come to the realization that the hate he lives by does not solve anything. And not long after that he is confronted with the death of his brother Danny at the hands of a black teen. The fact that the cold blooded murder is committed by a black person somewhat confirms what Derek has been preaching throughout the film. Also, the murder scene when Derek kills two black men who are trying to steal his car is glorified. Derek is shown as proud and serene with no remorse.

The intent was to make an anti-racist film. It shows the inequality of the justice system with Derek only getting 3 years for murdering two people and his laundry partner getting 6 years for stealing a TV and dropping it on a police officer. Also, it was the white supremacists that raped and beat Derek in prison but he was protected by his black friend. I do see it as an anti racist film but understand the arguments of how it can be seen as promoting racism.

Posted by fran0723 at 1:09 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Many of my classmates have accepted the notion that claims made in the assigned readings by K. Madison and L&P Finley manifest themselves in this week’s representative film sample, Tony Kaye’s American History X (1998). At a general level, these articles assert that by placing white supremacist protagonists at the center of an “anti-racist� narrative the more subtle, institutionalized racist belief system prevalent in American culture is perpetuated, rather than demystified. These arguments revolve around the notion that in most mainstream films black characters are minimalized, marginalized, stereotyped, and put in the proverbial “back seat� in the struggle for their own equality. While I do not fully dispute the arguments, as there are ample texts to support this, I am having a hard time seeing this reflected in this particular movie.

Take for example the character of Dr Sweeney – a strong, well-educated, politically astute black man. Not only was he there to console Derek when his own gang victimized him during his incarceration, but he was a powerful force in Derek’s redemption and reeducation. The character of Lamont further turns this notion of “white savior� on its head by proving to have helped keep Derek safe after his split with the hate group he had originally identified with. Yes, these characters were not as fully developed as Derek or Danny, nor were they given opportunity to eloquently espouse their views on race, but then again neither were any of the other supporting characters. Derek’s parents, Davina, Murray, Cameron – each were painted with very broad strokes as well.

Character treatment aside, I cannot allow myself to believe this film’s message carries racist intentions, even if subconsciously. In it’s raw depictions of ignorance, hate, and violence, this film is in no way condoning or glorifying the subculture it seeks to explore. The viewer is thrust into the narrative by witnessing harsh, ugly brutality of a twisted worldview right from the first scene. We come face to face with the epitome of evil – a man so consumed with rage that he ceases to be human. There is nothing beautiful, or sublime about it.

It is made perfectly clear that blatant, outward racism is not contained to the South of the past, as history would like the collective memory to believe. It walks among us all in the present day. But another reality is portrayed that is not present in our readings – that racism is not isolated to the binary opposites of black and white. This film goes further to show that racism also affects those of Hispanic, Asian, and Jewish descent. It illustrates that racism is also directed towards those with more liberal values within the white community – with the power to rip families apart.

We are given glimpses of the subtle ways racist beliefs are passed from generation to generation through the dinner conversation between Derek and his father. We see into the racism inherent in the prison system. If the main criticism of the film is that the superficial treatment of these elements undermines the message being presented, I do not buy it. If anything, it serves to underscore the magnitude and complexity of the issue. One film cannot take on all aspects of the problem, but it has the ability spark dialogue among people and that is the main thing to take away.

Posted by skog0031 at 11:11 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Although the movie American History X was intended to be an anti racism film, Laura Finley makes an extremely valid point when she states “Racial hatred is depicted largely as a group phenomenon perpetrated by individuals who elect or learn to hate.� By only focusing on the heinous crimes of recognizable groups such as the “skin heads,� the movie generates the idea that this organized sort of racist movements defines racial hatred, when in reality racial hatred also occurs in everyday people who might only hold subconscious biases, whether or not they act out in violent ways or not this racist hatred is still present.

In addition to this, the film almost encourages a new form of racism discussed by Finley which Madison defined as “enlightened racism.� Madison describes this enlightened racism as a false belief held by many that white society has made tremendous efforts to overcome racism and provided ways for blacks to gain equality when in turn the result is that there is less benefits and more discrimination for whites. The final scene of the movie where Danny is shot by another black boy, makes the viewer feel sorry for not only innocent and mislead Danny but also for Derek, when he in fact is indirectly responsible for the murder. This scene creates implications that white people are making attempts to overcome racism and that blacks are not making it easy and creating obstacles for society to overcome this racial hatred.

Finley also points out that the film portrays black character in a stereotypical fashion. This is in fact true when you observe that the majority of the black characters are convicts or gang members, with the exception of Mr. Sweeney. The lack of respectable black characters in the movie unfortunately portrays blacks as inferior to whites.

Due to such scenes discussed and the context of the movie, it is very likely that many viewers gain the wrong message and consequently hold existing stereotypes and racist ideologies even higher than before.

Posted by munoz047 at 8:06 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I won't say that the criticisms of this movie are entirely baseless in the glamorization of the Neo-Nazi movement. I knew people who watched this movie and took just the first half to heart, seeing it as a representation of their own frustrations in being a lower class white in the modern day and that the real reasons for their problems were due entirely to minorities now having an advantage over them. This really bummed me out to think that they could be so obtuse and miss the message of the movie, but maybe it was just a teenage thing they were going through. That, and if they were true to their word when they said that it was their favorite movie, then they would no doubt watch it again, and hopefully see something they missed the first time through and think again.
The ending of the movie is never really explained well enough in my opinion. I think the message was that racial violence runs deep. When Danny is shot by the African American student the director isn't trying to say that the Nazi's in the movie were right all along but rather that its extremely difficult to eradicate racism. A better illustration of this could have been how Derek reacted after this event and after the movie ended. Did he stand by his new convictions or will he revert back to who he was? We see that Danny has turned away from racism but Dereks fate is unknown. I think this is really the problem with the movie, that Danny's murder is really the final test of Derek's abandonment of racism and we don't see the results.

Posted by kupp0012 at 3:19 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

While many cite American History X as a brave move forward in racial relations, bringing to the surface racial tension in America, the movie fails as a tool against racism for several reasons. The focus on the story from the extremist white perspective undermines the array of various degrees of racial strain present in our culture while the treatment of black characters reinforces stereotypical beliefs.
The central plot of the movie revolves around the understanding that Venice Beach was a nice peaceful place to raise children until minorities moved in like parasites/virus from the surrounding troubled neighborhoods. Finley points to this depiction of the world as an ‘unsafe place, especially for whites’ (232). The film does not challenge the idea that it was safe until minorities arrived, creating conflict and danger. It almost justifies the white kids banding together for protection though it does call the methods in to question. The narrative still relies on the one ‘bad’ white man, Cam, corrupting the ‘frustrated and ignorant’ youths, almost excusing their violent hateful behavior.
Further more the whites dominate screen time, with black characters only included to help move the plot along. From the opening scene with gangbangers stealthily sneaking in, armed and ready to rob the audience absorbs this depiction of destructive criminals. Throughout the film viewers are “inundated with examples of how blacks contribute to the race problems in this country� (Finley 231). On the basketball court they jostle and argue amongst themselves during and after the game while breaking the rules and playing rough. While Finley suggests the scene where the nerdy white boy is being accosted in the bathroom leads the viewer to believe that the victim “accused the black(s) of cheating�, I felt the opposite watching it. They seemed to have invented the charge as an excuse to exercise their savagery, combined with the unequal numbers and unfair fighting style. The two ‘positive’ black characters are shown in the childlike prison mate and ‘uncle tom’ Sweeney; both are stereotypical, one dimensional and weak characters.
The movie puts a strong emphasis on individual components of a racist attitude. There is some mention of underlying socio-economic or institutionalized inequities but it is not explored or put forth in a convincing manner. The characters try to pull out of the “white pride� group but seem reluctant if not unable to really change anything but their own view.

WORKS CITED
Finley, Laura J. and Peter S. Finley “The White Supremacist in Anti-Racist Films� Contemporary Justice Review Vol. 7 No. 2 (June 2004) pp. 217-234

Posted by shaw0139 at 12:43 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This week in class we watched American History X which I have seen a few times over the years and have also seen it in a previous class. I really enjoy the movie and how it was put together with having the flashbacks throughout the whole movie. It always grabs my attention for the whole time while watching and I feel it sends a very strong message.

I do not agree with the criticism of this film and that the only people who engage in hate crimes are white people with shaved heads. I feel this way because at the end of the movie Danny, Dereks brother is killed by an African American which is also a form of a hate crime. This movie does kind of give false cues because when this movie took place there was a lot of hate crime being committed by white people, but the false cues are that these are the only people involved in hate crimes and I believe that anyone can be racist. Just by simply cracking down on a few of the racist groups could possibly help get rid of some of the racism issues, but you do not have to be in a group to be racist. Therefore simply trying to crack down on only the groups would not eliminate racism completely although I think that it would help.

Posted by pelt0071 at 12:22 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

First, I have to applaud this film for tackling the subject of racism and hate crimes and presenting it in such a passionate way that it will have an effect on everybody who sees it. Hopefully everyone will receive the positive but tragic message this film is trying to convey. That being said, I obviously have to disagree with the claim that American History X is a nihilistic film. Danny's murder at the end of the film is simply a reinforcement of the fact hat sometimes you just cannot escape the consequences of what you have done in the past, whether you have changed your ways or not. This is a scary truth for many people, myself included. Danny was on the verge of becoming a completely changed young man, but unfortunately his past actions caught up with him and he lost his life as a result. This is tragic but reality. Yes, Danny's heart had changed and he was on the way to living a much better life. Yes, Derek had completely changed his hateful ways but his hateful ways were not ready to let him go, I suppose. He suffered another tragic loss of someone very close to him, ALL due to the way that he and his brother had previously chosen to live their lives. Derek's life was full of meaning, even if Danny was the only person that was inspired by Derek to change. Danny's life had meaning because he was younger than Derek and looked up to his big brother, who inspired Danny to change. The end of the film is not nihilistic, but deterministic. Their actions and the resulting consequences followed them and caught up with Danny. Derek was lucky that his life was spared in the situations he was involved in that could have easily resulted in murder. Maybe Danny's death was another reinforcement for Derek that the hateful life only results in more hate, another painful reminder that Derek was and is definitely on the right track to living a clean life. I believe that Derek will not return to his hateful ways following the death of his brother. He's seen tragedy on all levels, all due to his hateful ways. There's no way he could think that returning to that life will do him or anyone else any good...how could he? Could you?

Posted by probe001 at 12:19 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I believe that the movie, American History X, directed by Tony Kaye (1998) is one of the most powerful movies released that deals with racism. Through the use of black and white cinematography to illustrate agonizing memories, Kaye is able to represent the ways in which racism creeps into the realm of popular culture. The film does a great job of avoiding preaching statements, and instead, demonstrates many forms of racism and underlying messages which are left for the audience to identify with.

Finley states that, “the most frequent stereotype is a violent thug� (230). Throughout the film, there are many racial groups which represent the character of a thug, therefore leaving me to believe that the film does not try to present a “white-hero� image but instead leaves the choice up to the audience to take it (the film) as they will. Although Danny endures a metamorphosis, going from racist to a good guy, I found myself not having sympathy for him by the end of the film, but instead, I found myself feeling hopeful towards the fact that people can change if they have the desire to. As well, the article The White Supremacist in Anti-Racist Films, also maintains that, “the choice of which character is given the loudest, longest, and most passionate voice or opportunity to speak, makes a difference in the messages that viewers take from a film� (Finley, 231). Although the messages within this film were extremely racist and stereotypical, the underlying messages implying that hate crimes are still quite present in the United States today, and are the result of different organized groups shines through and makes the audience realize the ways in which racism creeps into popular culture.

Posted by eisl0005 at 9:53 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Finley article claims that screenwriters have no intention of carrying messages of white supremacy and black stereotypes through their movies, but it often happens; however, I think that white people are shown just as negatively in this movie as the black characters. In American History X Derek is a disgusting, hateful human being at the beginning of the movie, and he transforms into a caring adult who wants to help his family. I think they make Derek’s transformation the highlight of the film, but it was evident that there were other changes going on. Derek’s friendship with the black man he worked laundry with was a big risk for both of those guys. The black guy even put his reputation on the line by asking the other black prisoners to leave Derek alone. The only white people who really went through a change in the movie were Derek and Danny, the rest of the skinheads didn’t change as a result of Derek’s awakening. The scene where Stacey encourages Seth to kill Derek at the skinhead party is evidence that not all of the white people were changed by Derek’s situation. Also, the only people who had hatred towards the other race in the movie were the skinheads. They wanted to black people off the basketball court, they had the Nazi tattoos, and they started the fights. Danny’s image and hatefulness towards black people was why the black man shot him in the end. It wasn’t the black man’s hate towards a random white person.

I felt the movie was not very “Eurocentric� until the very end. When Danny goes to turn in his paper only to be shot by a black gang member I was left in shock. At first I thought the whole purpose of the movie was ruined by that scene (a black boy killing the newly changed, “heroic� white boy), but my roommate brought up a great point. It just showed that this is an on-going battle in our world. Just because one white boy changes his mind about racism, doesn’t mean the whole problem disappears. I think Bernard Beck made a great statement when he said in his article, “In this genre, the triumphant climax leads to a catastrophic tragedy. Here, virtue does not triumph; it becomes even more virtuous by succumbing to the fundamental awfulness of the world.� These are the types of movies we’ve been watching lately – and rightfully so. I think all of the films that have ended in tragedy – Easy Rider, Boyz In The Hood, and American History X – have been very thought provoking. There aren’t happy endings, because that gives the audience a false sense of conclusion on the issues in the movie. The death of main characters draws emotions, and makes everything feel a little more raw and unresolved.

Posted by osbo0100 at 8:13 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

After watching the film, I was filled with such mixed emotions. I thought it was very sad, not just because of the death of Danny, but because it seemed to me that racism had won overall and that it is just a perpetual cycle that will never end. This feeling of hopelessness about the situation, along with the persuasiveness of Derek about his racist ideals for the majority of the film, are what make this film more of a racist rather than anti-racist film.

As the Finleys talk about in their article “The White Supremacists in Anti-Racist Films,� the cinema has an amazing amount of control over public opinion. This movie not only brings up some very powerful white power propaganda, but also shows some very sexist treatment. “They [the media] circulate ideologies- about good and evil, order and disorder- masculinity and femininity.� (Finley 2) While his sister Davina is shown to argue with Derek about his viewpoints, she is eventually forced to stop talking and to bow down to his superiority as a white male.

Derek is shown as a strong leader, patriotic, physically appealing, and a passionate, persuasive speaker. These qualities are something you’d normally look up to in a person, and therefore the viewer is more drawn to what he has to say. Derek seems especially appealing when compared to the black men in the movie. They are portrayed as thugs and cheaters, and Derek is shown as noble and honorable, and being a real warrior for his cause. This is very dangerous when what he is rooting for most of the movie is extremely racist ideals of white power.

Posted by kenne404 at 6:44 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I can see both sides of the argument of whether or not the film, American History X, perpetuates racism into society, although I do not think it is a pro-racist film, nor does it glorify racism. On the surface, the message of the film is quite clear. An impressionable kid named Derek is turned into an extreme neo-nazi racist after his father is killed by African Americans, Derek brutally (a truly horrific scene) kills two african americans breaking into his car at night, Derek serves a three year sentence in prison where he learns how wrong his beliefs are through several events and encounters with different groups of people, and, finally, Derek emerges from prison a changed man determined to rescue his younger brother from following in his footsteps. What the director, in my opinion, attempted to convey was that racism is a horrible thing, leading to horrible events and consequences, as were shown in the film. In the end, even though Derek and his brother, Danny, have presumably changed their attitudes towards tolerance and acceptance, Danny is killed by a black classmate in school that he had conflicted with before he "changed". It goes to show that even though Danny changed for the better, his past was still able to haunt him. He was able to change his own personal attitude, but did not have enough time to demonstrate his change to his peers. Unfortunately for him, he picked a fight with someone affiliated with the Crips gang (I am assuming this because of the blue clothing they were wearing in the car, I could be wrong though), and Danny was killed because of it. In the end, Derek held his dead, bloody baby brother in his arms crying "what have I done", realizing that his impressionable younger brother met his end because he looked up to and emulated him. Had Derek focused his anger at the INDIVIDUALS that killed his father rather than their entire race (and all other non-white, non-Christians) their lives would have been drastically different, for the better.

Posted by smit1989 at 5:58 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

American History X is the quintessential “Anti-Racist-White-Hero� film as described by Madison (1999). Edward Norton appropriately plays the handsome, strong, articulate “White Hero,� and the film is completely focused on what he has to say, which for most of the film is neonazi racist rhetoric. Such rhetoric might disgust educated, analytical viewers, but to many common movie-goers, too much of what comes out of Norton’s beautiful lips and into zombie ears starts to make some sense.

Even if one is shocked and disturbed by the violence of the extreme white supremacists, American History X seems to strive to create an understanding of a rational behind the violence, rather than to expose the ignorance and fear that breeds racial hatred.

Not only does American History X neglectfully exclude the complex, embedded history of fear, anger, and perverted logic that leads to the extreme racism of a Derek character, but by portraying such an extreme, unexplained racism, the film distorts the definition of racism to one of distance and dissociation. In addition, American History X makes a mockery of the transformation that is needed to overcome such evil, as Danny’s attitudes are undoubtedly transformed literally overnight.

Madison (1999) is critical of films that are supposedly “anti-racist� but are told through a “white hero� struggling for “black peoples’ equality.� While I agree it is tellingly racist that the majority of “anti-racist� films follow such a format, I want to qualify, or at least clarify, that a film about racism told through a white character could indeed be a very successful and insightful anti-racist film. The major problem with American History X and the other “Anti-Racist-White-Hero� storylines is not that they are told from a “white� perspective but that they demonstrate no understanding of racism.

Posted by mayxx145 at 4:54 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

It was hard to find a solid thesis that the author is presenting, but even so, they brought up some interesting points. In this article Hodgson talks about how censorship has changed over time and how the standards of rating have changed. They also discuss how vague ratings are and if they are a form of censorship. Any film that gets a bad rating or an un-ideal rating can lose major money for various reasons: either the rating is so low that people will think that it’s lame and just made for kids, or it gets a high rating and are limited in the places that will show it.

The author gives a little information about each aspect of how a movie gets its rating and what that means for those distributing the movie and to the audience. Hodson compares movie ratings from the 1970s to those of today. She remarks on the change from the emphasis of rating in the ‘70s depending on the amount of sexuality in them to today with ratings being more about how much violence is portrayed. Part of this is because of our cultures change of opinion of what is acceptable and what is not.

She also talks about the history of how the rating system began in 1968 as a pre-emptive strike against government or community censorship. They wanted a universal system that everyone could understand. The problem with the system though is that movies can get their rating based on violence, sex, or language, and they don’t clearly specify why each movie got it’s rating. This doesn’t help a parent decide if that movie is suitable or not for their child to watch.

It was kind of hard to follow this article because it seemed to jump all over the place and doesn’t going anywhere. There are also some spelling and grammar errors in it. Even with that though, it brought up some interesting points to think about. I think the overall idea was to say that rating have an important part in the movie industry and that we should make sure that they’re doing their job by helping the viewer decide if the movie is appropriate for them, or for children.

Posted by kenne404 at 4:03 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

My favorite character in the movie “Boyz n the hood� would undoubtedly be Jason “Furious� Styles. Furious though a strict father to Tre, he molds his son to rise against the adversity that surrounds his growing son. From sex, violence, drugs, and taking responsibility for one’s action Furious is the father figure that characters such as Ricky, Doughboy, and Chris do not have which greatly hinders there ability to succeed in life. Straight from the beginning Furious makes Tre rack the yard while Tre’s friends get to enjoy themselves. Though he is envious of his friends this guiding figure is the main reason that Tre stays out of trouble and goes to college while the rest of his friends are either severely hurt or killed.

One quote that is memorable is when Furious is with Tre by the lake and tells his son “Any fool with a dick can make a baby, but only a real man can raise his children.� The benefit of a strong father figure is evident. That is why Tre’s mother sends Tre to live with his father. Furious also mentions how he does not want to be a thirty year old grandfather to Tre. Tre in the movie is constantly trying to have a sexual relationship with his girlfriend but due to her Catholic faith she holds out. Due to this and Furious remarks about responsibility, Tre does not father a child young like his friend Ricky did.

Another quality that makes Furious an intriguing character is his lack of ignorance. He is not naïve like the other characters; he knows what goes on from living in the hood, to police brutality to sexual promiscuity. It is without doubt that Director Singleton’s was trying to show that a due to a lack of a father figure for most minorities and even whites in the hood there is an ongoing cycle of violence that will repeat itself. Teaching children young about responsibility is the greatest key to getting them to succeed in life.

Posted by dhill004 at 12:41 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I believe that criticism over the American History X portraying racists as shaved headed, who have swastika tattoos while wearing white robes and burning crosses is justified. Prejudice and discrimination occur far and wide within the United States whether it be high political officials to fast food workers. Even in the film racism is not only seen by the Neo-Nazis but by Dennis Vinyard (Derek and Danny’s father). He states at the breakfast table that he’s against affirmative action calling it “black-tion� and stating the black firefighters may not be as good as white ones. The characters of Derek and his Neo-Nazi friends are only a small minority when it comes to seeing the face of people who commit hate crimes.

To believe that if the U.S government were to crack down on individuals and groups who participate in hate crimes would only take the face of racism away but still leave the underlying problem when it comes to hate crimes. Hate crime can be defined as; an offense committed against another person, with the specific intent to cause harm to that person due to their race, gender, sexual orientation. Sure by eliminating these groups it would make major headlines but say for instance a well qualified minority individual applied for a job and was the best applicant and the only reason he was not selected was his skin color, this would be a subtle hate crime. The only way to eliminate this problem is to educate our children at a young age the problems of prejudice and discrimination. By educating this will be a much more effective way in fighting against the misdoings of hate crimes.

Overall though I believe that Tony Kaye does a masterful job portraying overtly racist groups and the mindset that they have. Though the character Dennis Vinyard is a good example of an average American speaking about his prejudice towards a specific group is a good placement, more subtly racist characters would undoubtedly helped give American History X a more realistic approach regarding hate crimes in America.

Posted by dhill004 at 12:23 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I think it is true that American History X does perpetuate some of the racism that it is trying to speak out against. This may stick with some people, and not others. Personally, I did not become more racist from watching the film, but if someone already having a radical racist viewpoint were to watch the film, I do not think they would be persuaded to change that. In the scene when Derek and his sister are arguing at the dinner table about the Rodney King incident, Derek makes some educated, and rational remarks in favor of the Los Angeles Police Department. Scenes like this only help to maintain the viewpoints of racists from watching the film, and the later scenes once Derek has transformed into a more tolerant person are not strong enough to a radical’s views. This mentality allows racism to skulk into the movie unintentionally. It is supposed to be a film against racism, but since the main character begins in the movie to be a racist, who is not necessarily ignorant, it does not help the film achieve its message of acceptance of all racial backgrounds. This is supported by Beck when he says, “The horrors of the neo-nazi movement are offered as a warning, and as an objective of condemnation, but they are also presented in exciting images of power, passion, and self righteousness� (21). This being said, Beck is also correct when he claims that the villainous side of the character makes a more lasting impact on the audience than the protagonist side of the character (21) because the audience is able to take in some of what Derek is saying as a neo-nazi as truth, when they are expecting quite the opposite.

Posted by kuni0018 at 8:34 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The film "American History X" directed by Tony Kaye in 1998 is said to be an anti-racist film, however many critics have deemed it racist, despite its good intentions. Some critics say that black stereotypes are reinforced in this film; others say the black characters are marginalized. Laura and Peter Finley, authors of "The White Supremacist in Anti-Racist Films," call "American History X" racist because of its use of a "white hero."

Although the film sends an anti-racist message through the character of Mr. Sweeny, a mainstream audience will most likely follow and relate to the two main characters that both happen to be white. As mentioned in class, it is not likely that an audience will sit back and analyze this film after viewing it. Therefore, the deeper issues of racism in this film will most likely be overlooked and the white hero will be the focus.

Finley recognizes this as well, stating that as the two skinhead brothers Danny and Derek turn from evil to good, the audience gains sympathy for them. This shadows the real issue of the film, racism. In addition, at the end of the film, we are left with the image of an adolescent African American shooting his ex-skinhead classmate, thus the audience again gains sympathy for the white character and finds is easier to detest the black character.

Whatever the message is that Tony Kaye intended to send by making this film, each individual audience member will undoubtedly interpret the film differently. Ultimately this film will either reinforce their current beliefs or alter them is some way for better or worse.

Posted by dollx040 at 11:10 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

American History X was one of the most brutaly horrific movies I have seen thus far in my life. It was not so much the violence that bothered me but the race driven hatred behind it. I was disturbed to see how fear and hatred could transform a person into something inhumane. Derek's dad was the one who sparked the anger towards different races. When he was killed by a black man it reinforced everything his dad had told him, making the most sense to a naive and distraught young son. The only thing he could do was point the finger, to blame every one else different from himself as the enemy. You can see how the racism almost becomes normal to the characters in the film because they are used to its segregation. They form hate groups to strengthen the unity between those who are alike, while separating themselves from those who are in their eyes different. Derek claims to hate everyone but white protestants. Derek becomes so intense in his hate that he is driven by it, its all that's left in his mind.
I can not say that I agree completely with Beck's statements, that the villian (Derek) is glorified in the film. The one scene I can't seem to get out of my head is when Derek smashes the black man's face into the curb. After he commits the act he looks crazed and frenzied, driven by something out of his control, perhaps mental illness. I just don't see how that could have been made "visually attractive" on screen when it made me sick to my stomach wth disgust. I get that the slow motion, black and white shots backed by the dramatic music added to the intensity but it did not glorify what was actually going on. The look Derek gave his hysterical brother after his brutal killing spree was insane. His eyes were gleaming with defiance, like he had found killing to be the answer to his burning questions. Perhaps he thought he would feel better after killing the same race who had killed his father and thus getting revenge. For whatever the reason may be, the only thing the visual cinematography of that scene does is intensify my hatred and fear of Derek.

Posted by kolsu002 at 11:07 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

American History X was one of the most brutaly horrific movies I have seen thus far in my life. It was not so much the violence that bothered me but the race driven hatred behind it. I was disturbed to see how fear and hatred could transform a person into something inhumane. Derek's dad was the one who sparked the anger towards different races. When he was killed by a black man it reinforced everything his dad had told him, making the most sense to a naive and distraught young son. The only thing he could do was point the finger, to blame every one else different from himself as the enemy. You can see how the racism almost becomes normal to the characters in the film because they are used to its segregation. They form hate groups to strengthen the unity between those who are alike, while separating themselves from those who are in their eyes different. Derek claims to hate everyone but white protestants. Derek becomes so intense in his hate that he is driven by it, its all that's left in his mind.
I can not say that I agree completely with Beck's statements, that the villian (Derek) is glorified in the film. The one scene I can't seem to get out of my head is when Derek smashes the black man's face into the curb. After he commits the act he looks crazed and frenzied, driven by something out of his control, perhaps mental illness. I just don't see how that could have been made "visually attractive" on screen when it made me sick to my stomach wth disgust. I get that the slow motion, black and white shots backed by the dramatic music added to the intensity but it did not glorify what was actually going on. The look Derek gave his hysterical brother after his brutal killing spree was insane. His eyes were gleaming with defiance, like he had found killing to be the answer to his burning questions. Perhaps he thought he would feel better after killing the same race who had killed his father and thus getting revenge. For whatever the reason may be, the only thing the visual cinematography of that scene does is intensify my hatred and fear of Derek.

Posted by kolsu002 at 11:07 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

When I first saw American History X in middle school, I remember being baffled at the existence of such a blindly hateful neo-nazi-istic society as portrayed in the film. After watching the film a few more times, and becoming more informed about the politics and dynamics of film I am able to see the influential undertones of the film. Danny acts as the “white-hero� in American History X, even if he is initially introduced as the antagonist.
This week’s reading by Kelly J. Madison identifies four key factors of the “white-hero� portrayal in modern film :
“1) White hero experiences some extreme form of racism vicariously through some extreme form of racism vicariously through some black contact.� (Madison)
“2) White hero develops a relatively radical anti-racist consciousness� (Madison)
“3) White hero sacrifices a great deal at the hands of white racists to further the cause of the black people’s struggle (usually in some leadership capacity).� (Madison)
“4) White hero suffers terribly for his or her efforts but manages to somehow prevail in the end.� (Madison)
American History X fits the criterion of each of the four sub-categories established by Madison in the following ways:
1: Derek experiences racism through the murder of his father, which establishes Derek as the victim of a violent act defined by race. He inherits his ideals and neo-nazi-istic leadership from his father, insinuating that the hate was “passed� onto him. Also, we see a white boy getting beat up by a group of black “thugs� in the restroom, which further propels Derek as an observer of wrongdoings of blacks upon whites. Derek’s third party presence in these scenes, that of a victim, reinforces his establishment as future “white hero.� Although he also is portrayed as a villain for the majority of the theme, the overall conclusion points to him as the European white hero.
2. Although Derek is vehemently racist in the beginning, he is shown in prison to have a moral turn around and change of consciousness regarding racism. He befriends his fellow prisoners, who are ironically shown as inferior. For example, his friend who was arrested for stealing a TV was portrayed in a comical way, demeaning his street-cred. In respect to Danny’s reason for being in prison.
3. Derek faces the alienation of his former peers in order to preserve his newly – found appreciation and respect for African Americans. He gets gang raped in prison, which further motivates viewers’ sympathies towards him. He is shown as rising above his father’s death, as well as his negative experiences with the black culture as portrayed earlier in the film. For example, in the beginning when a group of thugs is robbing his car, or the basketball scene. The film uses many stereotypes of thugs and gangsters to further propel Danny’s ability to overcome.
4. Although Derek lost his father, his connection to his neo-naziist identity and cohorts, and had many negative experiences with African American thugs, he is shown to overcome. Despite these sacrifices that he has made, Danny’s life is taken in the end by a black gang, fulfilling the “ultimate sacrifice� definitive of the “white Hero�.

Posted by joh03704 at 8:36 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

WOW. This movie has just moved up in my list of being nearly on the top ten. From day one of writing down my top ten films to this day of what can be called week 13, the movie American History X by Tony Kaye portrays a lot about society. Stereotypes exist in society but seeing them on the big screen really outlines them. In this film Blacks are portrayed as violent people and they are the enemies to nearly everyone in this film. Finley writes “the most frequent stereotype is a violent thug (230).� This is beyond accurate in the film and is crazy to think that people live like this.

This movie not only gives cues to who is a racist, it flat out points them out and even singles them out in groups. Whether it was the blacks against the whites at basketball, no not their t-shirts their skin colors, or the blacks beating on the white boy in the bathroom, these groups point to distinct differences in racism. Even more ludicrous were the scenes in jail where people were segregated. What really did it for me to make this movie go up nearly to number 10 was the notion that our jail system actually does reform people. After years of being in jail and finally being released, Derek views of life have changed. Granted that these changes were onset by realizing that having a view toward white supremacy gets you raped, as in this film, he finally has faith in a man of different color and ends up straightening his act up. The best part is when he realizes his life is almost nihilistic by the jail attendant saying “What else in your life could have done better and why aren’t you doing now?� This is crazy to think about and really made me think a lot about myself. Granted that I am not racist, but the notion of living to the fullest is so right. Color of someone’s skin should not stop someone, people of all colors will help you along the way. In jail when the laundry man helps Derek, he realizes that color doesn’t impact life it can help it. Imprisonment did however have its negatives by not putting Derrek in a position to change the current situation he was in. He tried to fix it by hurting someone named Cam but this only lead to his brother’s death. Finely was right in saying that a group of people has more power, rather than just one person (227).

Posted by remy0004 at 7:40 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

If the portrayal of the Los Angeles ghetto portrayed in Boyz ‘N The Hood was accurate, I find the struggles and socio-economical situations of Black America a difficult containment to escape from. The constant exposure of young kids and adults to violence, drugs, alcohol and the discriminating treatments from White and Blacks alike (i.e. the Black officer that arrives after the burglar escapes from Furious’ house and his negative comments on his so called ‘brothers’) makes anyone living in this condition susceptible to accepting and internalizing the stereotypes placed upon them. I find it hard to make any blunt comment on this film with my lack of knowledge of Black America and the ghetto life. I think this film was good in the sense of exposing the general struggles and problems that adolescences faces while living in the ghetto, (booze, drugs, guns) but for the sake of Hollywood industry and profitability, it was made to please both Black and White. If it was meant to challenge the comfortable level of White Americans, it could’ve depicted conflicts between black and white, what I feel many chooses to ignore on screen.
I definitely noticed the lack of portrayal of Black American Women. The most notable female characters were Tre’s mother, Tre’s girlfriend, and Tre’s friend/neighbor’s mom, however all of them were secondary characters in support of Tre, a Black male, who is the main character. Even character relationships is focused on the father-son relationship rather than the mother-son. The way the male character addresses female using bitches, hos, and whore, is degrading, although the women in the film does not react so, suggesting that it is typical and common in the hood. From the lack of presence of women in gang rivalry, I question how far women are involved in gang problems within the Black American community. The film could’ve definitely done a better job in this aspect, portraying women’s struggle as well as men’s.

Posted by lungx009 at 5:21 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Essay #3 question 2 asks you to examine Derek's comments during the family dinner with Murray. Here's an excerpt from that scene:

Posted by Anthony Arrigo at 2:47 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

a little late--
This film is a picture of a broken system. The Americana most Minnesotans grow up with is consistent; from generation to generation, times changing, but still comfortable. The laws are respected--aside from bending the rules of speed limits or underage drinking--and we have no fear of our neighbors. The film shows a world where the slightest spark-- like bumping into someone--can lead to homicide. The police, ever present with their helicopter lights, only swing by to harass the innocent, and not do a damn thing about the gun violence they know is lurking about. Yet, the unity that Furious wants in order to preserve culture is a far cry from the unity shown during the Watts and Rodney King riots. Those riots were tension-related, as people came together to show their common aggression toward oppressive white society. The movie, then, shows that because of the constant threat of black-on-black violence, the unity of a riot is the closest thing to unity the community will achieve. Whether or not what Furious says is true--that, because of liquor and gun shops on every corner that they whites are trying to get them to kill themselves off--there is a definite vision of necessary escape. Tre's mother gets out of the neighborhood as soon as she is able. Tre and his girlfriend go all the way to Georgia for school. By the end, all of the good characters have moved out or died.

Posted by aretz008 at 12:52 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In the film, Boyz N’ The Hood, Tre’s parents were not married, yet both wanted the best for their son. In the beginning of the film, Tre’s mother sent Tre to live with his father Furious. Tre’s mother did not have the intention of abandoning her son, but felt that Furious could teach his son how to survive and get out of the hood someday. I believe that Tre’s mother did make the right decision when she sent Tre to live with his father. There were certain things that Tre’s mother felt that she could not teach Tre, and living with his father would ultimately benefit Tre when he made a life for himself after getting out of the hood. In a broader sense, this shows us that men are just as capable of raising children as women are. A criticism that comes to mind, however, is that of teaching Tre to be a respectable and street smart individual. In the film, it seemed as if Tre’s father, Furious, was the only one who could teach Tre to be an intelligent black man living in the hood. Tre’s mother was an intelligent woman who had a college education and a drive to give Tre a decent life. There is no reason why she wouldn’t be able to discipline Tre and teach him all of the things that he would need in order to be successful in his life. In Kenneth Chan’s article, he argues that the black man was type-casted as a product of the hood and that black film was merely a Hollywood fad of the 1990s. The portrayal of the black man as a rapper/gangster was simply a popular trend in this time period, according to Chan. Boyz N’ The Hood perpetuated this image with several characters, but broke from the structure with Tre’s parents. Both his mother and father represented strong-willed, intelligent and determined people. In the film, one can see that the stereotype of black males only goes so far in the film. Several males and females break from these stereotypes, including Tre’s parents.

Posted by stap0069 at 11:54 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

“Boyz in the Hood� was a very realistic eye-opener kind of movie. The film portrayed the difficulties of growing up in the poor parts of Los Angeles from the perspective of a teenage black kid. Throughout the movie there are constant “threats� to the lives of the young black men, such as drugs, alcohol, sex, and violence. They are all stuck in what seems to be a never-ending cycle. There is a constant use of drugs and alcohol that seem to be a prime priority for them. The cycle these kids are stuck in also includes teenage pregnancies and continuous killings back and forth. The movie does a great job of portraying how these black people are suppressed. They are suppressed by all of those around them, but also by themselves. Tre’s father, Furious, explains that there are alcohol and gun stores on every corner for a reason. The reason that “they� want the black people to kill each other and drink themselves to death. It is along the lines of extermination of “problem�, by the problem itself. He also insisted the issue that they needed to keep their neighborhoods completely black. Black people, black money, black houses. Tre and his father appear to be the “strongest� characters in that they do not conform to the accepted way of life of the rest of the black people. Tre represented how hard it was to not live the same life as everyone else. In his attempts to escape from this poor life he avoids all the trouble the rest of his friends are always getting into. His friend Richy was even getting out. He had a scholarship for football and was going to go college. But because someone thought he “looked at them wrong� he ended up being killed too. And there it is again, a single mother with a baby that is going to grow up without a father and most likely fall right into the lifestyle the rest of the kids lead.

Posted by mcgui149 at 11:49 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The film Boyz 'N The Hood reveals many issues that African American men and women faced during the 1980’s and 90’s. Covering everything from teen-pregnancy to incarceration, drive by shootings, and racial discrimination, Singleton’s film paints a harsh picture of life in the inner-city. Throughout the movie we see the main character Tre’s friends become a product of life in the inner-city while he tries to take his father’s advice and rise above his negative environment. Thinking about his future, Tre sees the mistakes of his friends like “Doughboy� and, up until the last few moments of the movie, stays resistant to pressures around him. However, after his best friends Ricky dies, he falters and turns to violence and revenge on the young men who murdered his friend. Ultimately, he decides not to follow through with his plans to kill; however, Ricky’s brother is on a mission as well and succeeds in killing the three boys. Many feel that Boyz 'N The Hood portrays its character’s lives as meaningless; however, the characters’ messages are strong and truthful, which gives them powerful meaning. One other criticism of the film is its lack of perspective of African American women. I would agree with this statement; however, I feel that the movie does not focus on women because during that time they were not seen as strong or significant by many African American men. While I am positive that women during this time were affected by what was going on around them, they are not given a voice in this film because in reality they did not have one while living in the inner-city. Very little respect was given to them, and the words “bitch�, “ho�, and “whore� were used to put them in their place. We see this throughout the movie with Doughboy and his lack of respect for his mother and other women. Only when boys were taught to respect women are they given power and a voice, like with Tre and his mother and also his girlfriend.

Posted by colb0086 at 11:48 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The idea of woman's ideas and rights is strongly neglected in this film. The plot line emphasizes on the social struggles of the male character and not of the female. It mainly focuses on the troubles of Ricky and his half brother Doughboy. This film never really attacks the issues of how the female characters feel about there life styles growing up in the hood. Many of the stronger female characters in this film take on the roll of the mother in the family structure. About the problem of the constant use of sexist terms such as "bitch" and "ho", this is an issue that even troubles our culture today. These terms have evolved from simple slang usage to complete derogative sexist terms. Many of the female characters in this film were very accepting of these terms and never really took extreme offense by them. However like I stated before the women who had the much stronger more defining rolls such as the mother figures would never stand for that kind of complete disrespect. If this movie would have been told from the women's perspective, I believe that it would still be very similar to the original. However this film would have a much more of a social equality and women's right feel to it. It wouldn't have focused as much on the struggles of the gang violence or the complete economic pit fall of living in such a bad neighborhood.

Posted by hove0107 at 11:42 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

"[T]he remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country -- a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America…"
--Barack Obama (March 18, 2008)

The representative sample for this week’s discussion topic “Race, Gender and Cultural Resistance in Film�, Boyz ‘N The Hood (1991), was a powerful “slice of life� film depicting the coming of age a typical black urban male in modern America can expect. John Singleton’s film presents this narrative through the experiences of three main characters, each symbolic of different worldviews through which to deal with the harsh, oppressive reality of growing up in South Central Los Angeles. It is the development of these characters and narrative that Singleton created that meet the requirements of “burden of historical representation� presented in the assigned reading from Jeremy Stoddard and Alan Marcus.

In approaching a given film as an educational tool, as we are for our course, Stoddard and Marcus argue that it necessitates “underrepresented groups be portrayed in a way that allows the viewer to understand their points of view, history and language�, because it has a lasting impact on how people view the world and the groups that are represented, even if they know that the film’s portrayal isn’t accurate� (Stoddard and Marcus 27). All of the other articles that we read this week agree that Boyz ‘N The Hood was a one-of-a-kind film that sparked a new movement in Hollywood films being directed by blacks. In his article, Kenneth Chan identifies this outcrop of such films as “being engineered to appeal to the frustration and rage felt particularly by black males� (Chan 35) through the construction of an identity unfamiliar to most mainstream movie audiences.

Bakari Kitwana explores this construct in further depth in his article and discusses how many films released after Boyz ‘N The Hood focused on, reinforced, and even glorified the nihilistic characteristics of the thug culture, or “America’s nightmare – young, Black, and don’t give a fuck� (Kitwana 131). Although he understands the complex economic and social factors that contribute to the formation of such a character, he also warns that ignoring the socially aware, politically conscious roots of the Civil Rights and Black Power movements of a generation past is not going to stop the cycle of self-destruction and violence that has been holding a culture back from success for far too long.

As Singleton illustrated through the character of Tre Styles, there is an alternative persona for young, black males to adopt that can lead to a way out of the dead-end lifestyle of a gang-banger, drug addict or pimp. As our parent’s generation showed us, change does not occur overnight – it is accomplished one step in front of the other. We cannot give up on what they started, because doing so will only set us further behind on the path to fully realizing the ideals that we aspire to as individuals and as a nation.

Posted by skog0031 at 11:30 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Kitwana stated “contemporary discussion of race in America, locked in a 1960’s-style civil rights time warp, has failed to consider how young Blacks are affected by unique social forces that have created problems different from those of our parent’s generation� (122). Kitwana means that blacks have more opportunity to voices their ideas in many art forms than their parents in the 1960’s. These art forms such as rap music and black films try to portray young Blacks living in America, but their depiction of young Blacks itself creates what it means to be black. The music and the films industries only concern is making money, thus neglecting the negative influence they have on black community. The industries are trying to attract young consumers by “portraying outlandish violence and in the process constructed a young Black thug genre, almost Black parodies of white gangster flicks. (Kitwana, 127) The Boyz in the Hood also deals with violence in urban American where young Blacks have limited options and opportunity to get out of the hood. Young blacks have few positive role models in the media to look up to. The main character Tre had strong positive father who guided him, but others in the same situation who don’t have stable parents to turn to, popular black films and music would play important role. I think Boyz in the Hood is a positive black film that tells a story of hope and personal responsibility in the mix of violence and poverty in urban America.

Posted by mula0013 at 11:30 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Many reviews or critiques of Boyz in the Hood suggest that it clearly shows the sense of nihilism in black youth culture. I disagree with this statement because I viewed the movie as a message of inspiration and hope for the black people. When Tre went off to live with his father, he and his father still had good morals and values that they abided by even though they lived in a bad neighborhood. They were not corrupted by the violence and the disadvantages that surrounded them. When Tre’s best friend was murdered, Tre was very sad, angry, and frustrated but he did not lose meaning or purpose for his life by going off and committing murder back onto the murderers. Instead the movie ended with him and his girlfriend going off to college. Gates said, “[black people are like] crabs in a barrel. As soon one tries to get up and out, the others reach up and pull him down� (bloodbath 177). This movie offers motivation and inspiration to work and study hard and shows that it is possible to change one’s life around and get out of the situation there in. One might start in the barrel but there is an opening for one to get out. K. Clean said the following about the black people, “crime and street violence are a part of his world, and the way he comes to terms with it frequently determines the path he eventually takes in life� (Clean 45). This film showed that a bad neighborhood could force you toward crime and violence but it is your choice how you respond to it and act on it which in turn decides the path you choose.

Posted by karp0040 at 11:26 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The film "Boys 'n the Hood" seemed to be nihilistic in some aspects and not nihilistic in others. There were a number of shootings and it seemed fairly easy for the characters to pull guns when they got into fights. That kind of shows that there is not a whole lot of value placed on human life. However, the main characters are devestated when Ricky is killed.

Ricky's death seems to strongly affect many of the main characters. Ricky's brother begins to realize how screwed up murder is. And Tre learns a lot about himself. When placed in an ethical dilemma like the one he faced he was able to take the high road and not give in to his temptation to kill out of vengence. In this sense Ricky's life did have a lot of meaning. He wasn't just a guy. It was his life and the way he lived it that made a difference and affected those around him.

Posted by Martine Schroeder at 11:25 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Kitwana talks about the ‘1960’s style time warp’ as the country’s perception of African Americans as those fighting for their rights as American citizens rather than being treated like second class citizens. Society fails to see the true struggles that African Americans go through throughout the United States. Kitwana discusses the problems of their parent’s generation as the civil rights movement and their struggles as the violence and gang activity. The film seems to go along the idea of the problem with gang violence and poverty. The film does not focus on the civil rights movement and the fight for their rights. It focuses on the younger generation and their violence and fight for their lives on the streets in their neighborhoods.
The women portrayed in the film are made out to look like ‘bitches’ whose only job is to raise the kids and look hot. Women, in the film, are seen as second class citizens compared to the men in the film. They are treated like shit and not respected. When the men in the film talk about them they are always talking about getting a piece of ass rather than referring to them as equals and humans too. I had a problem with some of the women because they aloud the men the call them ‘bitches’, ‘ho’s’ and ‘whore’s’. Only a couple of the women stood up for themselves and women in general to say that they were not bitches, but they did not go beyond telling the men once. The men would respond with another derogatory term and the women would cave in because it was a losing cause. The film would have been very different if it was told from a women’s point of view. I think there would have been fewer scenes of violence and more scenes of how the women were treated by their men and the day-to-day themes of their lives in the home.
To say that Boyz ‘N The Hood is a nihilistic film is ridiculous. The film clearly shows how rough life was in L.A., especially in the more poverty stricken parts of the city. The people portrayed in the film had a purpose in live. Not all of them lived to kill each other and have their children repeat the process. A lot of the main characters in the film wanted to be more, but did not have the opportunity. Many were victims of the violence that occurred during that time in that part of the state. All of the character’s lives in the film had meaning. Doughboy was unfortunate to not have a mother or a father that cared enough for him to keep him from making a lot of the mistakes that he made. His mother was more focused on Ricky rather than him. It was not a big surprise that he did not go on to pursue bigger and better things. Tre was fortunate enough to have a mother and a father who cared about his future and life while he was growing up; teaching him important life rules and lessons to live by.
Doughboy and Ricky both contributed to each others lives. Doughboy looked out and stood up for Ricky because, in his heart and mind, he knew that if there was anyone who was going to make something of himself it was going to be Ricky. Ricky had his mother’s blessing and support to do whatever he wanted. Unfortunately, Ricky could not get past his own pride and respect and fell to the violence and gang activity before he could get away from the streets and go to college to get a great education and a possible scholarship to play football.
Tre was faced with an incredible situation when Ricky was gunned down. I, honestly, do not know what I would have done. I have a friend or two that are as close to me as Ricky and Tre were, but I do not know if I could shot or even kill anyone else for killing them. I can not judge anyone else for wanting or feeling like they wanted to kill the person who killed their friend because I have not been in that situation. Tre was extremely brave and courageous for giving into his dad and eventually getting out of the car before Doughboy killed the guys that killed Ricky. I figured that Doughboy and his friends would have gone after and killed the guys that shot Ricky, but I would have been extremely surprised if Tre was with them. From how I can only imagined how I would have felt if I was in this situation, I can somewhat understand how the horrible cycle of violence continues. Tre’s dad Furious talked about all of the liquor and gun shops in the neighborhood, I can see why the violence was so prevalent.

Posted by hanl0083 at 11:18 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

When I looked up the film “Boyz n the Hood� on the Internet Movie Database it showed the tagline to be INCREASE THE PEACE which I don’t believe accurately represented the storyline. For the most part, this posse of ghetto Los Angeles teenagers is looking for the exact opposite of peace. Instead we see them constantly flashing their handguns and swearing at anyone in sight. If the tagline is advertised as such to reflect the views of Furious Styles, Tre’s father, I don’t believe that it was successfully achieved by his character either. Throughout the film Furious preaches to his son and his cronies, about a conspiracy theory. While standing on a corner surrounded by a crowd of black men he asks, “Why is it that there is a gun shop on almost every corner in this community?� and answers his own question by explaining to the eager listeners, “For the same reason that there is a liquor store on almost every corner in the black community. Why? They want us to kill ourselves.� This theory represents that depicted by Kenneth Chan in his article, The Construction of Black Male Identity in Black Action Films of the Nineties. Chan recants a 1990s pole taken by the New York Times/CBS in which it was discovered that “60 percent of blacks in New York believe or at least admit the possibility that the easy accessibility of drugs in poor black communities is part of a government conspiracy� (Chan 36).

Rather than a tagline related to that of universal peace, I think this film successfully promotes finding personal peace. As Furious watches Tre experience perils of the hood, his role as a father is not to baby-step his son through them, but to guide him in the best direction. It is ultimately Tre’s inner strength and belief in right vs. wrong that gets him through hardships. By avoiding a potentially dangerous situation which he knows to be the wrong path of action he is demonstrating a single act of finding personal PEACE.

Posted by weir0041 at 11:17 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

When I looked up the film “Boyz n the Hood� on the Internet Movie Database it showed the tagline to be INCREASE THE PEACE which I don’t believe accurately represented the storyline. For the most part, this posse of ghetto Los Angeles teenagers is looking for the exact opposite of peace. Instead we see them constantly flashing their handguns and swearing at anyone in sight. If the tagline is advertised as such to reflect the views of Furious Styles, Tre’s father, I don’t believe that it was successfully achieved by his character either. Throughout the film Furious preaches to his son and his cronies, about a conspiracy theory. While standing on a corner surrounded by a crowd of black men he asks, “Why is it that there is a gun shop on almost every corner in this community?� and answers his own question by explaining to the eager listeners, “For the same reason that there is a liquor store on almost every corner in the black community. Why? They want us to kill ourselves.� This theory represents that depicted by Kenneth Chan in his article, The Construction of Black Male Identity in Black Action Films of the Nineties. Chan recants a 1990s pole taken by the New York Times/CBS in which it was discovered that “60 percent of blacks in New York believe or at least admit the possibility that the easy accessibility of drugs in poor black communities is part of a government conspiracy� (Chan 36).

Rather than a tagline related to that of universal peace, I think this film successfully promotes finding personal peace. As Furious watches Tre experience perils of the hood, his role as a father is not to baby-step his son through them, but to guide him in the best direction. It is ultimately Tre’s inner strength and belief in right vs. wrong that gets him through hardships. By avoiding a potentially dangerous situation which he knows to be the wrong path of action he is demonstrating a single act of finding personal PEACE.

Posted by weir0041 at 11:17 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The film Boyz ‘N the Hood was largely male centric. There were few female characters and their portrayal was largely unfavorable. The two mother figures both were shown as somewhat distant, though for different reasons and in different ways. All the neighborhood girls were trashy and one dimensional. Even Tre’s girlfriend was the stereotypical ‘good’ catholic school girl. Rick’s girl was little more than his baby’s momma with virtually no dialogue or personality. They all fell within the simplistic “good/bad dualism� frequently found in Hollywood images of people of color (Chan 37).
They were further marginalized by the constant use of bitch, ho and whore. Most the characters did not even address the labels and the ones that did were not really reflective. Doughboy repeatedly suggested that women were essentially valueless. I think the oppression of women in the community is another facet of what Chan describes as “the unfortunate phenomena of autodestruction� (38). The males are externalizing the repression they feel from society. Essentially, if they are low on the social ladder, they need to make sure someone else is underneath him.
Sadly, if a film was made from the female perspective it would lose its drawing power. They would over sentimentalize the tragedies while cutting down on the violence. It would probably run like a Lifetime Original or some spiritual conversion. However it would not have been too difficult to just flesh out the women in the movie. To give them agency as individuals outside of “wife/girlfriend/mother� would have resulted in a more compelling and less sensational film.

WORKS CITED
Chan, Kenneth. “The Construction of Black Male Identity in Black Action Films of the Nineties� Cinema Journal, Vol. 37, No. 2 (Winter, 1998) pp. 35-48.

Posted by shaw0139 at 11:17 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

As some might have criticized, the film Boyz n The Hood clearly shows the sense of nihilism in black youth culture. I strongly disagree with that. I think the movie does not show any sense of nihilism. The movie gives the audience a sense of how important family, friendship, future are. There are purpose and values that the characters in the movie posses. It shows how crucial it is for the younger generation to have role model, just like Tre has his father as his guidance, teaching him self-discipline and moral of life. I believe that the death of Ricky and Doughboy doesn't make their lives meaningless. Ricky lived his life full of value and ambitions in my opinion. His purpose is to get to college, have a career, raise own family and get out of the mist, of trouble, of shooting and killing. He does have values and moral. It's just too bad that he got killed over some mistakes that his brother made. I think he lived his short life well enough, with love and ambitions. On the other hand, Doughboy was quite different from Ricky. He didn't really have a purpose in mind or any ambitions whatsoever. He was wasting his time drinking, partying and doing nothing. However, I don't see his life as being nihilism. He knows to love his friends and his family, even though most of the time he doesn't act and talk like he does. I wouldn't call his life nihilism, but a mistake. He makes mistakes, big ones. I think the phrase "if only" plays a big part in Doughboy's life and characteristics. If only he didn't get drunk all day, if only he didn't show off his gun on that night with the other gang, if only he didn't fight with Ricky, if only he didn't get revenge for Ricky...if only...The whole thing was a huge mistake. He is a man with love for his brother, for his family, it's just that he doesn't show it well and doesn't do any helpful thing for them. I really believe the actions of the characters refute the charge of nihilism.
At the end of the film, when Tre sees Ricky got shot, and got really angry about the incident. It was all against what his father had taught him all his life. He was supposed to stay out of trouble and he would be okay. Seeing his friend Ricky, a good person, a future college student, got shot for not doing anything wrong, made him question whether what he was taught is true. Ricky didn't do anything wrong, didn't start any fight with anyone, then why did he get killed???? I think ultimately, I would have done what Ricky did. I would forget all the disciplines I was taught for all my life and get revenge. I admire Tre for realizing his mistake before committing it. It was a good decision not to go along and get revenge for Ricky. Violence does turn out to become a cycle. Someone has to think right and stops the cycle, otherwise violence can't ever be stopped.

Posted by truon052 at 11:05 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I think that traits of nihilism were evident in many characters in the movie, but to say that they didn't care about anything, or didn't see any purpose to life, is definitely not true. Ricky, for example, had ambition, which is shown through his dreams of becoming a football player at USC. He works hard at school, and seems to have his priorities straight, even while having a child. From the beginning of the movie we know that Tre has morals, because his dad stresses them constantly. A good example is when he stops Tre and yells at him when Tre grabs his gun and is about to go out and look for Ricky's killer. Tre seems to be the smartest one of the teenagers. He doesn't go along with Darin when Darin shoots Ricky's killer, which shows that he has at least a healthy amount of common sense. I think Ricky's brother, Darin, does shows traits of nihilism by just drinking on his porch all day, with apparently no ambition whatsoever, and by shooting Ricky's killer, although I guess you can say that that was somewhat justified in a way. The director showed nihilistic traits well in his characters, but his characters weren't totally nihilistic.

Posted by ruppx051 at 11:04 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The movie Boyz ‘N The Hood is an accurate representation of how upper class America found a way around the civil rights movement. From the start of the movie it is apparent that the setting shows the level of poverty these kids are growing up in. “The man� is holding these members of the black community down. It is shown a few times during the movie. For instance when Furious shoots at the intruder in his house, the black cop suggests that it was a bad thing that he had not shot the “nigger� after showing up an hour after he had called 911. Another instance of this is at the end of the movie when Furious, who I like to refer to as the voice of reason, is explaining to the people how the government is trying to keep them down by putting liquor stores on every corner, by trying to kill them. He is completely right. John Singleton was putting the fact that even 30 years after the civil rights movement the black people of America were still being suppressed out there, “Capitalism, more interestingly described by James Nadell as "racist capitalism" in his essay "Boyz N tlte Hood: A Colonial Analysis," works toward maintaining the socioeconomic status of the rich and suppressing the
attempts of the black underclass to overcome poverty and suffering�(Chan, 37), He is arguing that although the civil rights movement gave afro- Americans the hope of advancing in the capitalist market of the United States and climbing out of the pit of poverty, that their attempts would be unnoticed. It was about the rich getting richer from day one. This movie was excellent at showing how society found a way around going through with the civil rights movement 100%.

Posted by stor0245 at 10:59 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The movie Boyz ‘N The Hood is an accurate representation of how upper class America found a way around the civil rights movement. From the start of the movie it is apparent that the setting shows the level of poverty these kids are growing up in. “The man� is holding these members of the black community down. It is shown a few times during the movie. For instance when Furious shoots at the intruder in his house, the black cop suggests that it was a bad thing that he had not shot the “nigger� after showing up an hour after he had called 911. Another instance of this is at the end of the movie when Furious, who I like to refer to as the voice of reason, is explaining to the people how the government is trying to keep them down by putting liquor stores on every corner, by trying to kill them. He is completely right. John Singleton was putting the fact that even 30 years after the civil rights movement the black people of America were still being suppressed out there, “Capitalism, more interestingly described by James Nadell as "racist capitalism" in his essay "Boyz N tlte Hood: A Colonial Analysis," works toward maintaining the socioeconomic status of the rich and suppressing the
attempts of the black underclass to overcome poverty and suffering�(Chan, 37), He is arguing that although the civil rights movement gave afro- Americans the hope of advancing in the capitalist market of the United States and climbing out of the pit of poverty, that their attempts would be unnoticed. It was about the rich getting richer from day one. This movie was excellent at showing how society found a way around going through with the civil rights movement 100%.

Posted by stor0245 at 10:59 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I enjoyed watching this film, it showed the social and economic differences between the black and white culture. The film does ignore the women's perspective. The film portrays women as almost second class citizens. The women are largely ignored and just seen as objects. The society led or influenced women to go against their morals and better judgment by having relations, because they thought that is what they had to do. It was almost like it was expected of them. The women were called "bitch" and "ho" and "whore". These words were extremely offensive names to call a women. But again these names and actions towards women were just accepted as a common natural occurrence. I think the attitude of the film would have been very different if the views of women would have been told. It would have offered a very different opinion on the happenings of that time period. And also would have made it possible to compare and contrast the views of both the men and the women. But either way I eel this was a very informative well done film.

Posted by zabor005 at 10:57 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

It is tough to say whether or not this film can be considered nihilistic. Throughout the movie, it exemplifies many fine examples for either side of the argument. As is the case with many of the movies we watch, the "theme" of the movie can vary greatly depending upon one's interpretation of the events that transpire. My take on this film is that it is a film of prosperity and perseverance, two traits not usually associated with nihilism. John Singleton, the man responsible for the creation of this film, set out with a goal. Boyz 'N the Hood attempts to show that beneath the mass chaos often shown on TV (in the ghettos), there is still some semblance of order, and still a code of ethics and morals that many people choose to live by, regardless of race, religion, or economic status. Tre is a prime example of the effects that solid parenting has upon a child. Ricky is another bright spot in the otherwise bleak and dark neighborhood, as he is trying extremely hard to get into an excellent college, where he can prosper and rise above his miserable home. Clearly, these boys have something to live for, and they have the drive and determination to make it, in the face of prejudice and poverty. These types of uplifting stories would not be found in a movie attempting to portray the nihilism found in ghettos.

Posted by hanse978 at 10:55 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The black police officer in Boyz 'N The Hood represents the self hatred Kenneth Chan writes about in his article. The officer sees Tre and all the others in "the hood" as what is wrong with their race. They personify the problems of all black people and the officer is taking his rage out on them. By saying that Furious should have killed the burglar because there would be "one less nigger on the street" he is vocalizing his anger with himself.

By contrast Furious calls the police officer "brother" to say that they have to stick together and not turn on each other if they want to better themselves. Furious is proud of being black and knows that the only way to survive is to rise above the negative and not get sucked into the continuous cycle of hatred and violence.

Posted by fran0723 at 10:45 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

War and violence is a prevalent part of our society. Urban war happens all over America, creating violence between races, genders, and social classes. Boyz in the Hood represents the inner city warring culture of LA. This movie reminded me of my experiences in Newberg, OR. Our town was in the lower economic class and had a lot of hispanic feuds, along with drug problems. The problem of young minorities finding their place in America leads to many issues, usually becoming a problem degrading the community and making things worse for the generations to come. This movie shows how those who can make it out may not be able to do to certain situations, and those who can't make it out make things worse for others. It reminds me of the problems the US had trying to fix poor foreign countries when it has problems on its own soils where these communities are as much foreign as those outside of the US.

Posted by Chris Lewis at 10:44 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

First of all, let me say this is one heck of a depressing movie. Everything about it is so sad. What the citizens of south central L.A. have to deal with day in and day out, it's ridiculous. Funny thing is, the movie came out how long ago and how many people have seen it, but yet have things changed dramatically?

I definitely agree that the women's perspectives are largely ignored in the film. The one lady who was always asking for crack, is a good example. There was no explanation for how she got where she did in her life, but obviously it was not done by anything good. She must have had bad leadership as a child herself. Now, the lady has children and is making the same mistakes, just to let her children grow up and add to the hell that is the life of the inner city citizens. She doesn't take care of her kids in the way that her two year old can run around unsupervised and end up in the middle of the street. Another great example is Ricky's mother. The way she treated Ricky as a child and the way she treated Doughboy were complete polar opposites. Ricky was treated so well compared to Doughboy. Ricky was the one who was always playing football, giving his mother hope that he would have the ability to leave someday. Doughboy didn't do much of anything as a child and his mother treated him as if he wouldn't amount to anything when he grew up. As children you could already see the difference in the attitudes and actions of the two children. Ricky was always playing football, being the "good" child while Doughboy was talking back to his mother and stealing things, leading him to juvenile detention centers and so forth.

Posted by woehl007 at 10:39 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Boyz 'N The Hood was an insightful film which showed just how easily things can go on a downward spiral of violence. I don't think it was a nihilistic film, it does not protray the black youth's existence as meaningless and of no value. The film actually goes against that way of thinking by showing the frustration and confusion the main characters feel at times of helplessness. It shows how some get stuck in the old violent drunken patterns of their neighborhood while others strive to break it. There are feelings of hoplessness around their neighborhood because it's as if they have no one to back them up. the police force obviously aren't reliable showing up late if at all and going beyond their authority by belittling innocent men. That is where the reviews of it being a nihilistic film must have came from, the fact that the people of power deem the youth as worthless. The film's protrayal of the cops, however, was far from honorable. They were unfair and unjust people with distorted perceptions of humanity who should not have been given a badge and a gun.
The film personalized the characters, making the audience feel what they felt. There was nothing any one could do when Ricky died, his best friend watched him take the bullets, and his mom and girlfriend watched him bleed to death. There's no way an ambulance would have gotten there in time or that there was a hospital with in close enough vicinity to the shooting. All anyone could do was scream and cry for the loss of their brother, friend, son, boyfriend, and father. Ricky meant so much to those around him, he would have gone on to college and played football, thus defying the pattern of his neighborhood. He had already made a family for himself that he left behind. It shows a violent prone society, one where death is accepted as fate and where the time of death doesn't matter. weeks before doughboy was murdered he told Tre that he accepted it and that "We all go sometime." That way of life is not how it has to be. I recall Furious telling the group of people how there is a liquor and gun store on every corner because "they want us to kill ourselves." He thought it was the whites/governments way of getting rid of the black community. The film personalizes these views of how unfair and unforgiving the urban Los Angeles area was and what a struggle it was for the black youth to get out alive .

Posted by kolsu002 at 10:37 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In this film there is a lack of consideration for women and how they are portrayed in this film. The treatment of women in the film was rather appalling. The constant use of “bitch� and “ho� when referring to women shows how appalling the treatment was. It was surprising that none of them seemed to take offense to it. The girls just shrugged it off, because it happened all the time. Women in the film were only shown as mothers and hook ups, and they were shown negatively. There were many examples of this. In the beginning of the film when the daughter was across the street, two of the boys were fussing over whose girlfriend she is, one of boys said he “puts his dick in her every night.� Tre’s mother sends him to live with his dad after issues at school. She attempts to get back in his life and neither Tre’s nor his father wanted this to happen. Tre’s had no respect for his mother and even blows off a weekend with her to stay with his “boyz�. Older women in the film are shown as crack heads, or even abusive mothers. In one scene a child is found out on the street and when brought back inside by a male the mother did not seem to care that the child was out on the road almost run over. Kitwana explains, “Parents may not be perfect and at times fit into neat stereotypes (such as welfare mothers), but they hold their families together as best they can� (pp. 125). Women usually stayed out of violence in the film, and wanted their families and children stay out of it as well. Men in the film treated the women as if they were ignorant, and did not listen to the women’s views, even though they would have been better off doing so. The fact that men did not listen to their women’s views emphasizes that women’s perspectives are largely ignored in the film. However with regards to this idea that women’s perspectives were largely ignored in the film, we have to remember the film is called “Boyz n the Hood�. The main characters of the film were males, and the women were not important to the films story line. John Singleton created this film to show the view of drugs and violence within the poor inner city with the use of male characters.
.

Posted by campb503 at 10:33 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Kitwana discusses how nihilism “dominates� films such as Boyz ‘N The Hood, but I feel that among all the chaos and hopelessness that is depicted in the film there is underlying motives that would not be considered nihilistic. If Boyz ‘N The Hood was truly nihilistic, then there would be absolutely no morals or values present. Morals, values and beliefs vary from society to society and in this crime stricken neighborhood, which at times, is deduced to basic survival instincts, we see how the ethics change (Kitwana 124). One might claim that the young characters portrayed in the film have no ethics, but I would argue that they have a very strong code of ethics, regardless of how unethical our society would perceive them. One example would be when Doughboy avenges his brother’s death. I believe it was the moral obligation he had to fulfill, this eye for an eye mentality that was present in the youth culture of the film. The police weren’t about to do anything about it, so it was the only way he thought justice could be served. Some truly ethical moments in the film include moments such as, Tre saving the infant from being hit by the oncoming car or Doughboy and Ricky’s mother allowing them to continue living with in her home regardless of their situation which acknowledged the importance of family. There is definitely ethics present throughout the film and therefore I believe this negates Kitwana’s claim that nihilism dominates this film.

Posted by cros0189 at 10:33 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Boyz N the Hood is not a nihl

Posted by schr0845 at 9:56 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

“Boyz ‘N The Hood� was, safe to say, different than any movie I have ever seen. It disturbed me to think about the things in this film happening in real life, yet we have learned the plot of Boyz is not all that far from the truth when it comes to Los Angeles and other large cities, in the 80’s and beyond. For example, the nihilistic attitudes of black youth culture is one aspect of popular discussion that was portrayed well by some characters in this film, especially the men that shot Ricky to death. Also, as Kitwana remarks, “you also see a different strain of [nihilism] in Doughboy’s worldview. He’s not so much a rebel without a cause as he is doing what he feels he’s got to do so survive.� That is, sometime Doughboy dishes out the typical nihilistic actions like the stereotypical black youth, but he always seems to know the cost of things in the back of his head, and is willing to accept whatever it is. Tre, on the other hand, is the antithesis of nihilism in this film, a product of his caring father and positive upbringing. Overall, there are some characters that exhibit nihilistic qualities as they are expected, but also a few who refute such behaviors and attitudes.

In the end of the film, we truly see how, as James Nadell puts it, “[t]he raw human tragedy and triumph depicted by Singleton sears and energizes the consciousness of the viewer.� Ricky’s death scene is difficult to watch, and we can feel the hatred for his killers emanating from the eyes of Tre and Doughboy. Doughboy is determined to avenge his brother’s death, as is Tre at first, but then we see the distinction between these two characters when Tre decides not to go along. The vulnerability of the situation feeds Doughboy’s nihilistic attitude, which is why he goes through with murdering his brother’s killer, to whom Ricky’s life was meaningless. It is here where perhaps the “cycle of violence� in this community is slightly better understood to be somewhat of a basic means of survival, unfortunately.

Posted by joh02361 at 9:54 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I thought this film was one of the better ones seen in the class. It had a much more realistic aspect to it and as everything was put together it came out as a real amazing movie. It does a good job of showing the great gap in the relative standings of the white culture versus the black culture. I have to agree with everyone else in that it portrays women in a much lower position than one would like to see, where it pushes them to lose their virginity and just have children despite their beliefs or religion. There would have been drastic changes had the film had it been told from a different point of view. As sad as their situation may be, it would seem that it has been going on in many places for a long time. In this new age one would have hoped it would have died off. Tre's father had the right view on what was really happening in the advice he had given him.

Posted by leex2727 at 9:49 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The film “Boyz n the Hood� is meant to be a “slice of life� depicting the hardships facing black adolescents. While the film illuminates the often ignored social and economic problems facing the black community, it nevertheless glorifies the criminal mentality and further exacerbates existing problems facing black youth. Film executives claimed that similar “gangster films� were simply capturing what was going on in the lives of today’s young blacks, yet they failed to take into account the long term ramifications on black youth. In the article “Young, Don’t Give a Fuck, and Black: Black Gangster Films� by Bakari Kitwana, the author states that the “media and entertainment corporations rediscovered Blackness as a commodity.� (123) Just like the blaxploitation movies of the 70s, gangster films were created with only profit in mind, despite what film executives said.

Kitwana states that “contemporary discussion of race in America, locked in a 1960’s-style civil rights time warp, has failed to consider how young Blacks are affected by unique social forces that have created problems different from those of our parent’s generation� (122). Black inner-city youths face pressure not only from coming of age problems, such as sexuality and SATs, but also have to deal with the horrors of violent crime, drug addiction, and poverty. They are forced to grow up quick and ultimately realize that getting out of the hood ultimately rests upon them. Furious shows that having a positive influence can make all the difference, offering fatherly advice such as “Any fool with a dick can make a baby, but only a real man can raise his children.� The morals instilled on Tre by his father undoubtedly have a positive impact, as seen at the end of the movie when he decides to not exact revenge. This act shows a glimmer of sunshine through cloudy skies as Tre realizes that change is possible, but real change first comes from within.

Posted by ande4849 at 9:45 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

To be perfect honest, I believe John Singleton's Boyz N tha Hood is one of the better films of the 1990's. The underlying theme that I felt was the most powerful is one that many African-American leaders still discuss today as a major problem within the African-American community: a lack of a father figure in many homes. I diassagree with the idea that this film paints a negative portrait of women because if it weren't for the hard work of all the single mother's in urban areas, there would be absolutely no hope at all. While hope is minimal, it still exists and these young men have oppurtunities no matter how adverse the situations are.
Filmed and set in the early 1990's, this is a depiction of South Central Los Angeles and the problems that plague its residents. Drugs, Gangs, corrupt cops, you name it...It is a wonderful film, and I feel a very critical film made by an African-American director that challenges people of all races, espeically african-american males, to see and examine the importance of a father figure in a young man's life. Trey's father brought him up with dicipline and convictions and really showed Trey the right way to the path of manhood. While he wasn't a perfect man, he still took care of his son and did the right things for him that enabled Trey to eventually move on and go to college, unlike Ricky (who is brutally shot) and Doughboy (who we find out would later die in a retaliation killing). It shows the racism that exists, but more importantly it shows that people can overcome it. I feel that John Singleton truly created in Boyz N tha Hood an urban masterpieces that has yet to be equaled by any writer/director capturing the urban existance for the african-american male.

Posted by moros007 at 9:38 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

After watching the movie Boyz 'N The Hood, it has become clear to me how important role models are to children. While not every child who does not have a role model growing up "falls" to the streets, it is safe to say that the chances are greatly increased. The fact that Tre' had someone to give him advice and teach him values and morals makes him have a positive conscience that guides him in times of need. The younger a child is, the more likely they are to take in a mentors messages and make these words of inspiration a part of their central being. To say that the movie is nihilistic may go slightly overboard. While obviously many of the kids in this movie have problems establishing a set of values and morals, this does not link to the fact that black youth culture has no purpose. What can be proven is that if a child has a role model, whether it be a parent or just a friend willing to teach lessons, they are much more likely to use these values and morals that are instilled in them. Without a mentor, a child is forced to make a spur of the moment decision in the heat of the moment. If Tre had not had values instilled in him from an early age, he may have made a completely different decision on getting revenge for Ricky's death. Every child deserves a role model and this movie just helps us notice the importance of morals and values in relation to living in a "rough" part of town and ultimately living a rough life.

Posted by cloy0004 at 9:34 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I think this movie presented an accurate depiction of the African-American community in south central Los Angeles. In the early 1990’s in this area many African-Americans were living in poverty. Due to racist views and violent action taken by the police riots broke out in 1991 and before that in the mid 1960’s. During this time there were several social movements going on and African-Americans were still demanding equal rights. Along with this movement the black youth would still encounter several obstacles in hope for equal rights.
In last week’s class we talked about the African American culture in Los Angeles, during the 1990’s. In contrast with white society we were able to see the disadvantage that African-Americans faced. In the black community there was little offered to African-Americans that would help them prosper. There was a lack of education, health care and even things like grocery stores. There were gun shops, bars, and drug dealers on every corner. There was little opportunity for jobs or a chance to improve ones economic standing. Boys ‘N the Hood effectively shows “what it means to be young and Black in America at the dawn of the new millennium� (Bakari, 122). It shows the ignorance of American white society. They did not know about these communities, or if they did showed little compassion for its people. Americans did little to help these people. Grant Flatgard

Posted by flat0101 at 9:32 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

By “1960’s style civil rights time warp�, Kitwana is expressing the thoughts and the reasoning that went into figuring out the race problems of the 1960’s won’t expressly work for the problems of today. This is manifested in the film with the seeming separation of the issues by the two generations: Furious seeing the economic and financial problems with declining property values leading to lesser prosperity in the black community, and Tre and his friends seeing the day to day struggle with drugs and violence and complacency. The struggle from the 60’s is more about the rights of which they wanted to accrue, while the problems of today lead mostly with survival and complacency.
I don’t portray Boyz as a nihilistic film, but it does have streaks of it. The three gang-bangers who shot down Rickey are seen later eating at a fast-food restaurant as though it didn’t even happen. Tre and Rickey are two characters in the movie that aren’t happy with believing life isn’t about anything, and really go against the nihilistic tendencies portrayed in many of the black gangster type movies of the time.
The policeman’s hatred is really a two part issues. On the one hand, he blames the black youth for causing the problems that he has to deal with on a day to day basis. The other part is that he doesn’t see that his heavy handed nature and his thinking that all black youth are inherently bad and criminals perpetrates the same problems he is trying to solve.
Tre’s mother did make the right choice because it was obvious that he needed to be taught the right morals of how to be a man, and living in a tough time by his father. Her motivation was ultimately of goodness for Tre, although by giving him up, she was being self-serving at the same time. She was trying to advance her career and move into the middle class, and that would’ve been much tougher raising a child at the same time. She was partly abandoning her son, but she also realized that Furious could give him a better upbringing than she could.

Posted by nemme003 at 9:27 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Many teachers frequently use films based upon real historical events as tools for educational purposes; However, Stoddard and Marcus, in the reading entitled “The Burden of Historical Representation: Race, Freedom, and 'Educational' Hollywood Film,� argue that the use of Hollywood Films in classrooms may be problematic and should be used cautiously in order to avoid naïve misunderstandings. Stoddard and Marcus make an extremely valid point, and I agree that if not used appropriately, certain Hollywood Films used as educational tools may not always be beneficial to students and give them a skewed idea of certain issues, particularly those revolving around racism. For example, when watching the film Boyz 'N The Hood, many students, especially younger audiences, are not always completely media literate which may lead them to over generalize African Americans as the way they were portrayed in the film, and assume that all African Americans live lives such as "Tre" and "Doughboy". As a result, many teachers, instead of reinforcing the roles of different cultures and providing the desired perspective of the problems of racial issues throughout history, may actually be further contributing to this continuous cycle of racial biases within the students themselves.

It is extremely important for the students to understand that most all media is Market-driven. Due to this market driven attitude, many Hollywood films, even if based on actual historical events, are not always completely accurate and often include many fabrications in order to make it more entertaining and appealing to various audiences. As a result, it may not always be in a teacher’s best interest, particularly those of Middle and High school students, to use Hollywood Films in the classroom as educational tools. If used, the film should be accompanied by thorough discussion of the possible misconceptions of media and the importance of holding a critical viewpoint in order to avoid naïve misunderstandings.

Posted by munoz047 at 9:24 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

While many teachers frequently use films based upon real historical events as tools for educational purposes, Stoddard and Marcus, in the reading entitled “The Burden of Historical Representation: Race, Freedom, and 'Educational' Hollywood Film,� argue that the use of Hollywood Films in classrooms may be problematic and should be used cautiously in order to avoid naïve misunderstandings. Stoddard and Marcus make an extremely valid point, and I agree that if not used appropriately, certain Hollywood Films used as educational tools may not always be beneficial to students and give them a skewed idea of certain issues, particularly those revolving around racism. For example, when watching the film Boyz 'N The Hood, many students, especially younger audiences, are not always completely media literate which may lead them to over generalize African Americans as the way they were portrayed in the film, and assume that all African Americans live lives such as "Tre" and "Doughboy". As a result, many teachers, instead of reinforcing the roles of different cultures and providing the desired perspective of the problems of racial issues throughout history, may actually be further contributing to this continuous cycle of racial biases within the students themselves.

It is extremely important for the students to understand that most all media is Market-driven. Due to this market driven attitude, many Hollywood films, even if based on actual historical events, are not always completely accurate and often include many fabrications in order to make it more entertaining and appealing to various audiences. As a result, it may not always be in a teacher’s best interest, particularly those of Middle and High school students, to use Hollywood Films in the classroom as educational tools. If used, the film should be accompanied by thorough discussion of the possible misconceptions of media and the importance of holding a critical viewpoint in order to avoid naïve misunderstandings.

Posted by munoz047 at 9:24 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I do agree with the idea that the women’s perspective was largely ignored in the film. The main characters of the film were all males, and the women were not important to the story line of the film. The plot centered around the difficult life of the black males. Women in the film were only shown as mothers and hook ups and, most of which, were shown in a negative sense. The main characters in the film through around the words ho, bitch, and whore as if they were just another way to say girl. I found it surprising that none of them seemed to take offense to it. The girls just shrugged it off, because it happened all the time.

One scene that really stuck out in my mind when we talk about the light in which women were shown in this film is when Tre picks up the baby off the street and brings her to the house. The woman answers the door and she doesn’t even care that her child was just about to be hit by a car, instead all she wants is more drugs. I couldn’t believe it when I saw this scene and I think it summarizes the portrayal of women in the entire film. As useless people who just have children and don’t know what to do with them, in all honestly they really are just bitches and whores.

I think the film would have been very different had it been told from the perspective of women, because the trouble with all the shootings and gangs wouldn’t have been as prevalent. Instead there would have been much more discussion about not working and about raising children on their own. There were of course aspects of the film, however had it been told by women they would have been much more prevelant.

Posted by elmxx014 at 9:21 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

First in order to make sense of the following analysis of "Boys N' the Hood" I should first preface by saying that I do not use the word "race" to describe the superficial skin pigment differences among people of the world. I do this because people too often refer to race as reality instead of an illusion. The term "race" suggests an irreconcilable biological rift between populations of people that can only present itself as competition, not collaboration. There is no such thing as race. The human species, like all animals are present with genetic variation within a population. This genetic difference can be manifest in many different ways. Sometimes displayed "phenotypically" or carried as a result of incomplete dominance". Skin color in humans is determined not by one, two or three different alleles but actually over THREE HUNDRED dominant, recessive, and linked genes sometimes all three. The fact is that even between siblings of the same two parents skin color can vary significantly. Most often it does not because 300+ alleles tend to average together mathematically. Another fact is that the divergence of human populations is relatively recent, and the most recent common ancestor even more-so. The take-home message is that there is no factual basis for discrimination or to believe that on average blacks have less potential.

I think the film rightly points out as with the scene where furious takes the boys to the site of a foreclosure, that many of these ethnic conflicts start out and continue as economic exploitation. Those in east the L.A suburbs were
expected to pay taxes and contribute to the economy but the fact is they didn't even have a hospital. That coupled with the general manufacturing exodus lead to a perfect storm of poverty and age-old American tension.

Sadly a parallel can be drawn to Iraq. There as we see, different religious and ethnic factions are killing and exploiting each other for the promise of oil wealth and power. Meanwhile the whole country's infrastructure continues to deteriorate.

A suppose that does lead to a sense of Nihilism. When your environment repeatedly tells you that you are worth nothing and will not be missed, it starts to sink in. Whether it's joining the army or joining a gang, the options for some a so limited that situations of desperation can lead into a self-sustaining regressive spiral. I think the only way out is to first acknowledge that race doesn't exist and then to invest in the success of these poor neighborhoods regardless of ethnic makeup. If that requires digging up the city of los angeles to expand the rail system then we should look at it as an opportunity to create a lot of jobs in construction and transportation and an opportunity to invest in infrastructure. Anything is better than that L.A. traffic.

Posted by gonza275 at 8:58 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

It was quite a well directed movie that shows what it is like growing up as a black kid in a poor American community. Producers implemented the use of drugs and human abuse to show what the environment is like.

It seemed as though the older generation and the younger ones were caught in the same horrible welfare of the community and that there were no end in sight because they were continuously passed down to the younger generations. Tre worked hard to live a different life but the movie showed that no matter what, one's community does have a role in one's personality and way of living.

I do agree with Kitwana in that that the problems of the younger generation were passed down from their parents because they were born in the midst of a radical change to the perception and way of life of the American community. It is understandable that an establishment of regarding the blacks as inferior people, which lasted for many years would not just vanish within a couple years in the 60s.

Therefore knowing that the 60s human rights events are relatively not too far of a history, it makes sense that some of the frustrations and chaos within the black community would easily be passed down to the younger generations.

Posted by onon0006 at 8:51 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The black officer in this week’s film represents a closer look a broader subject. The theme correlated with this certain policeman is one of plague. The plague of hostility and brutality in South Central, L.A. The officer shows how the police force in this area is seemingly apathetic toward protection and crime prevention which illustrates the overwhelming weight of violence. What difference would it make what authorities do? Crime will always exist. Why exert an effort that will make no difference? These are things that are demonstrated by this particular officer. His laziness and late arrival to a crime scene shows that no matter what this constant violence will never cease. And his hatred is a clear depiction of the frustration due to the helplessness incurred from the environment. Also this hatred may be a representation of, as Chan notes, “a hatred of self, Blackness� (41). Chan also says, “hatred of self is characteristic of intrapsychic racial conflicts in segregated societies� (41). This may offer a reasonable explanation to why this officer conducts himself the way he does in this film.

Posted by luli0004 at 8:47 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

First off I want to say the Boy’s N’ The Hood was in my opinion the best film that we have watch throughout the entire semester. I think it was because it dealt with a more current time period compared to other films/documentaries that we have watched in class. Racism is something that has always been an ongoing issue throughout the United States, some places being more of an issue then others. When I think of racism I think of the days of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, when they stood up for the black community, risking their own lives for the greater good of society. Before watching this film I had no idea what it was like to being living in Los Angeles during the 1980’s and all the trial and tribulations African Americans were faced with on a day by day basis. I believe that this movie stood for “equality�, the same thing that MLK and Malcolm X preached approximately twenty years earlier. Boys ‘N The Hood successfully shows “what it means to be young and Black in America at the dawn of the new millennium� (Bakari, 122).
The film does a great job of showing the difference in culture between whites and blacks. One example that was a continuous theme was how white people were given more opportunities and resources in becoming successful in life compared to people that were African Americans. Due to this it created many problems especially when it came to getting jobs. Because of this blacks were not able to get jobs that paid as well as white’s which for many people resulted in being very poor and being associated as people in poverty.
This film showed a clear image of what it is like to be Black in America and how hard times can be. I never really realized how strong racism is in our country still to this day until watching this film. Color should not determine what sorts of opportunities you are given. Everyone should be treated equal and that is the message that I received from the film, Boy’z N’ the Hood.

Posted by white968 at 8:45 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

First of all I really enjoyed watching Boyz ‘N the Hood, especially how it dealt with the issues of the social aspects of being black and not having money, while growing up in an urban area. Even though someone may not be in the same situation economically and socially as someone who is living beside them in the same area. Kitwana article talks about, “The Black middle class lives in close proximity to the poor, and hence, suffers similar perils…Tre is caught up in the same drama faced by his less fortunate peers� (124-125). Tre gets to see what goes it is like being in a class that is lower than he is, so he knows what he does not want. This is probably one of the main reasons he did well. He knew where he did not want to be. One aspect that I really thought was good about the film was how black fathers were represented. The “Young, Don’t Give a Fuck and Black� article discusses how “his father’s guidance pulls him from the brink (whether in his decisions about sex, career choices, or his responsibility to avenge his friend’s death)…� (125). It is more usual for black children to not have a father than it is to have one. This leads to bad examples being shown and a bad cycle to begin, especially for the boys of the family. It is common for a father to dessert his children because that is what happened to him when he was growing up. This is due to fatherless men growing up by their own rules and idolizing the wrong people who will not set good examples on how to live their lives. However, Boyz ‘N The Hood, is a good example of how a good father figure can be for a young man. Tre’s father was an unusual father figure for the type of community that he grew up in. If Tre had not had the father figure he had, he probably would have grown up to be just like everyone else who were going no where.

Posted by culve018 at 8:45 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I found the treatment of women in the film Boyz ‘N the Hood rather disgruntling. The of all the people in the United States the African American community should know better than any other group of people how unjust it is to treat people disrespectfully simply because of how they were born. The constant use of “bitch� and “ho� when referring to women shows how despite the fact that they were oppressed, they did not mind oppressing others. It is sad, but it seems as if it is in the human nature be degrading to others so long as they can get away with it.

It also was obvious from the movie that from the viewpoint of the women the actions of the men were rather foolish. The women generally wanted to stay out of violence, and wanted for nothing more to have their families and children stay out of it as well. The men treated the women as if for the most part they were ignorant, yet it if the men simply listened to the women they would have been much better off.

The thing that possibly bothered me most about this film was the actions of the children and how the culture encouraged them. As shown in the video even in the deep inner city the people had the means to improve their lives. Many of the women in this film improved their lives and helped do so for their families, as well as some of the men who put their minds to it. Despite this, most of the people in this film ignored their possibilities of self betterment in order follow crime and drugs.

The greatest disappointment in this film was how even those who did not fall into moral stagnation, and were not content with the decay of their society and thus fought against it for their own betterment were dragged down by the rest of the society. In the film there were several examples of this but the greatest of them was when the college aspiring youth going to college on a scholarship was shot by a gang banger who had nothing to live for and based on his actions no future either.

It was also sad to see as was discussed in class and the readings how the city did not learn from its mistakes. The group assigned to inspecting what happened predicted that if something was not done to better the area the same thing only worse would recur. They were right. It does not surprise me that as nothing was done a second worse riot occurred, but it is shocking that the government does not out of simple humanity try to better the living conditions of the people living in areas like the inner city. It seems wrong to stand by while people live, and have their children raised in areas that are that corrupt and dangerous.

Posted by andre368 at 8:44 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Boyz ‘N The Hood tells the story of Tre and his family and friends. The group deals with urban life, violence and economic and social aspects of being black and disadvantaged. Whereas the generation before Tre dealt with issues of voting rights and public segregation, he deals with black-on-black violence, drug abuse and the criminalization of Black youth by police. Kitwana’s suggestion of a “1960’s-style civil rights time warp� (122) is accurate. His time warp shows the discussion of race in America is not including “unique social forces� (122) that affect individual African Americans. As discussed in class, African Americans were lumped into the category of rioters or criminals, not seen as people dealing with poverty, poor housing and inadequate education.

Nadell’s discussion of Furious’s statement about how drugs are not brought into the country by African Americans solidifies how skewed the criminalization and stereotyping of Black youth is (452). Narcotics, for Nadell, seem to be a driving force of the “within-group violence� (453) in the film. It seems to suggest characters like Doughboy and his friends steal, sell drugs, are violent and go to jail because they have no control over their lives. They must do these things to keep food on the table or stay alive.

Furious teaches Tre that personal responsibility is the way to escape life in “the hood.� He teaches Tre the importance of working hard, that violence does not solve problems and that school is crucial for success, among other things. As Tre decides to go along with Doughboy and the others to find Ricky’s killers, the senses of revenge and futility can be felt. The group wants to avenge Ricky, who was trying to get out of the hood, but they know they are only adding to the violence--what none of them like, but feel they can‘t avoid. Tre realizes nothing good can come from killing Ricky’s killers.

What many of the others in Doughboy’s group lack, as Furious says, is a parent who teaches them right from wrong and how to be a “man.� When Tre’s mother sent him to live with Furious, she was not abandoning him, but giving him a father, which many of the African American boys could not have. Furious acts as a moral authority that Tre can look up to. Without him to show Tre a way of life besides that of a drug dealer or criminal, Tre may have ended up much like Doughboy, or worse, dead.

Posted by Candice Dehnbostel at 8:33 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This film really reminded me of my home, North Minneapolis. The issues portrayed in the film are lived out everyday there. The murder rate is through the roof, and almost always, it’s black-on-black crime. Murders are always high, and even more so in the summer when it’s hot and people are bored and irritable. As was illustrated in the film, the cycle of violence never stops. A member of one crew gets killed, then their people go to kill the people who did it, then their crew goes back for revenge. It is absolutely horrible and many people die over pride and unforgiveness.

As far as what happens at the end of the film, the cycle of violence is understandable from the viewpoint of the characters, but certainly wrong nonetheless. It hurts to lose someone you love, thus, the side of the victim becomes angry and full of rage, seeking out revenge. If there is one thing that is valued in the hood, it’s sticking with your people. If one person is in a fight, everyone with them is in a fight, somewhat like the “all for one, one for all� principle. So under that train of thought, if someone kills your boy, it wouldn’t be right for you to just let them get away with it. Then, they “won�. I can definitely understand the mix of rage, passion and anger, the friends and family of Ricky felt. It was worse because he had so much promise and potential. They looked up to him as the one who would make it out of the hood, and ironically, essentially, it was the hood that killed him.

One thing I really admired in the film was Furious’ character. The “Young, Don’t Give a Fuck and Black� article discusses how “his father’s guidance pulls him from the brink (whether in his decisions about sex, career choices, or his responsibilty to avenge his friend’s death)…� (125). It is so common today for black men to be fatherless, continuing another unhealthy cycle. A new dad may leave a family, because his father left him when he was young, and it sadly goes on and on. I was impressed that Singleton portrayed Tre with not just a man in the house, but an actual, good, stand-up father that provided true guidance and imparted wisdom. Many times, (but not all) in communities like this one, if there is a father in the picture, he is not the type of man that Furious is. That fact, again may be of no fault of his own. As Tre’s mom said in the movie, a mom can’t teach her son to be a man. When men grow up without fathers and are teaching themselves what it means to be a man, it is true that they may pass on misconstrued or incorrect messgaes to their own offspring, having never been taught correctly. The only Tre turned out to be anything was because of father, training him up in the way he should go. If not, he would have ended up just like the Doughboy and the others, doing nothing with his life.

As the Kitwana article talks about, “The Black middle class lives in close proximity to the poor, and hence, suffers similar perils…Tre is caught up in the same drama faced by his less fortunate peers� (124-125). Though he was higher class, he still experienced the same struggles and problems that they did. Because of his upbringing, he behaved and perceived things differently, he was somewhat of an outsider looking in, rather than a true part of what was going on. This is what propelld him into success, he knew how to survive IN the hood, without being OF the hood.

Posted by Jasmine Omorogbe at 7:49 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

When Tre's friend, Ricky, is gunned down and killed in front of him, Tre is understandably teeming with rage against the people who killed him. Tre's initial reaction is to go home, get his father's revolver, and join Doughboy and the other guys in the hunt for Ricky's killers. Tre's father, Furious, does his best to talk Tre out of seeking revenge, but is eventually unable to. It is easy to sympathize with Tre. He saw his best friend shot and killed as he tried to run away from his killers. Tre's rage masks his father's teachings of nonviolence. Tre's rage at the end of the movie enables one to think back to the beginning of the movie when Furious' home is broken in to. Furious takes two shots at the intruder, but misses him, prompting Tre to express his wishes that his father had blown the guys head off. Furious responded by telling him that he can't think like that, and that if he killed the guy that it would only have been another brother dead.

Putting myself in a similar situation of seeing one of my best friends or family members murdered, I would have felt the same rage Tre did. I would be overcome with emotions of guilt (that it wasn't me), anger, sadness, revenge etc. It is hard to say that I would have joined a group of people to hunt the guilty party, but I probably would. Also, like Tre, I probably would have changed my mind after a while of driving around with the guys. My father's teachings would be heavily on my mind, and my conscience would have probably stopped me from killing someone. I did find myself with a feeling of relief, saying to myself "good" when Doughboy killed the guys who killed Ricky. The way that we are made to sympathize with Ricky's death and his friend's and family's grief and anger allows us to feel this way about the revenge. It would have made the audience feel differently had we seen the families of Ricky's killers after they had been shot and killed. I couldn't help but think about the way I feel when I watch a war movie on WWII or Vietnam. I obviously sympathize with the Americans in the movies, but I can't help but think that the soldiers the Americans are fighting and killing also have families and friends who will grieve over their deaths. It is definitely an interesting way to think about things, and definitely makes acts people killing other people seem very senseless and awful, no matter what the context.

Posted by smit1989 at 7:48 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Young, Don’t Give a Fuck, and Black deals with how things happen in the ghetto. These people are their own culture within each other and are a close family. Even when Tre is just moving in with his father, these two boys come over to be friends with him, and they begin this lifelong friendship. The first section of the film, I think there are four women shown: Tre’s mother, doughboys mother and the mom and daughter from across the street. In this film there is a giant lack of consideration for women and how they are portrayed in this film. Even in the beginning with the daughter across the street, two of the boys are bickering over whos girlfriend she is, one of them saying he “puts is dick in her every night.� Then there is Tres mother who sends him to live with his dad after an altercation at school. Later she attempts to get back in his life and neither Tre or Furious want this to happen. For them there is nothing that he can do for him and there is no use. He does not appear to have respect for his mom or want to spend excess time with her, he even blows off a weekend with her to stay with his “boyz�.
Also with the way that they speak to and about women, the word use is constantly bitch and ho. At the barbeque Ricky is the only one who seems to show respect to his wife and show admiration for her. Doughboy calls one of them a ho and when she says she is not, he then calls her a bitch. These women are called these names and do not have any retaliation, they seem to be portrayed as weak and like they do not care.
The older women in this film are shown as crack heads, abusive mothers, or abandoning, there is no sign of bonding like the men have or since of working together. These women are only shown as needing men and working through them. Brandi is the only women in this film that appears strong by saying no to Tre, but this changes later in the film when he comes over all vulnerable. Women do not have a voice in this film, but I think that this was not a concern. This film is about how the men interact and what they do, not about women and their reaction. To have added a women’s voice, it would of added another point of view and a main character. This film would have not had the same response if it had a strong female point of view. This would need to be in a different film that focuses on their life, or this film would need to be much longer.

Posted by lile0005 at 7:16 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Boys ‘N The Hood, effectively portrays the difficult struggles of the African American community in the early 1990’s. Boys ‘N The Hood, takes place in Los Angeles during the early 1990’s where a significant number of African Americans lived in poverty. Los Angeles was a place where African Americans riots broke out during 1965 and again in 1991 because of police brutality towards African Americans. Although a majority of social movements were happening and African Americans were demanding equality and power, the youth of African Americans still faced the infinite challenges for the same rights their parent’s dreamed about. .
Boys ‘N The Hood effectively shows the hypocrisy and failure of equality and power from the United States Government. In our class discussion last Wednesday Anthony talked about the African American society during the 1990’s, especially in Los Angeles California. African Americans societies were at a disadvantage compared to white’s societies. They had a bar on every corner and various gun shops but there was no super market to be found, they were provided with inadequate education, insufficient health services, they weren’t provided with enough jobs and as a result of that many of them were poor, along with many other things.
Boys ‘N The Hood effectively shows “what it means to be young and Black in America at the dawn of the new millennium� (Bakari, 122). Boys ‘N The Hood shows the United States, which seems to have no idea that there are communities within the United States that really need some help. Boys ‘N The Hood ending of the movie really clinched it for me when Darin is talking to Tre about his brothers death. Darin said "I watched the news this morning. Either they don't know, don't show, or don't care about what's going on in the hood. They had all this foreign shit. They didn't have shit on my brother, man."

Posted by towar003 at 6:52 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

While some of the characters in “Boyz ‘N the Hood� fit the description of nihilists, the film itself does not. The film, while portraying characters caught up in the destructive cycle of violence, prison, and death, still functions as a morality play and is able to offer some hope. “Boyz ‘N the Hood� shows the result of choices made by the various characters, with Doughboy, avenging his brother’s death and paying for it with his life, and Tre, who despite often walking a thin line between life on the streets and one on the straight and narrow, is able to make it out of the ‘hood. However, proper conduct equating success does not always hold true, as is the case with Ricky, who was awarded the opportunity to attend college on a football scholarship, but was still gunned down in the street. The proverbial “moral of the story,� presumes that if one follows the “right� path and does the “right� thing, he has a chance at breaking free of his bleak situation and “making something of himself.�

But, obviously, things are not that simple – while often it is one’s choices that affect how their life turns out, the “if only� questions comes into play. If some of the nihilistic characters, like Doughboy, had guidance like that bestowed upon Tre or Ricky by their parents or the community, would they still be in the situation in which they find themselves? Regarding Doughboy’s futile viewpoint, Kitwana in “Young, Don’t Give a Fuck, and Black,� states, “…his options are limited and he can’t find a better way. He needs help navigating life. His family, community, and society have failed him.� Because he does not have the necessary parental support, he tries to find it on the streets, whereas Tre and Ricky are molded by their parents who prepare them for a productive future.

Towards the end of the film, as the crew cruises the street in search of the gang members who killed Ricky, Tre gets out of the car, deciding that he no longer wants to be part of the retaliative killings that they were about to embark upon. Tre, in leaving the others behind, showed that he had meaning in his life and did not want to wind up in prison or dead, as was inevitable. He had plans for college and wanted to start a business, dreams that would not be realized should he follow through with the killings. Juxtaposing this is Doughboy, who epitomizes the nihilistic attitude, tracking down his brother’s killers and blowing them away in the street. He had no prospects, no hope, claiming, “We gotta die sometime,� and his actions show a life without meaning.

Posted by palaz012 at 5:48 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I think Boyz N’ The Hood is one of the best movies we’ve seen in the class this semester. Although it was upsetting and sad to see racism occurring during this time, the movie showed how important it is for us to be equal with each other. Before I watched the movie, I didn’t really have this clear image of 1980s Los Angeles, but after watching it, I was really surprised because of the struggle that African Americans were going through. You can see this by looking at the difference between the white and the black culture in how they are provided with different amount of resources and opportunities for getting jobs. As a result, there were more poor people in black community than the white community. From one of the readings, Guerrero argues that “the black movie boom of the 1990s has materialized out of a climate of long-muted black frustration and anger over the worsening political and economic conditions that African Americans continue to endure in the nation’s decaying urban centers.� For a long period of time, African American culture was going through a tough time and they were forced to live with limited amount of resources, which I think made their thoughts and feelings towards “equality� a lot stronger. The film showed a clear message and it’s fortunate for us to see less racial activities in US today – the movie in the 80s and the 90s, I think, shaped the steady social and political environments that we have today.

Posted by katay007 at 5:29 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I think that their is a pretty big difference in this weeks movie of Boyz 'N the Hood and last weeks movie Talk to Me. The roll of the black character in society is portrayed in a pretty different light in each of them. In Talk to Me, the society comes together as a whole to try to overcome obstacles and segregation. They take on the characteristics of a normal civil rights activist in that they are passionate and non violent about the rights they are trying to earn. It is the exact opposite in Boyz 'N the Hood. This is not a hip-hop film, nor a detached and dehumanized story about "gang violence" (the great over-simplified scapegoat of the issues treated in this film), its a story about growing up fatherless or motherless in a war zone with a faceless enemy, where people do not value each other's lives at all and value their own lives only slightly more. Murder and substance abuse are an everyday problem and these are just a few things that are in the way of these children trying to grow up in a society where they are completely segregated already because of their skin color. I found it amazing that it took so long for the officers to show up to Furious's house after a robber had broke in and when they finally get there, the officer is black and he makes a comment to them saying, “too bad you didn’t get him; it’d be one less nigga out here in the streets.� Chan refers to this as the “internalization of racial hatred the black man sees in his blackness� (41). I believe that the officer is completely incoherent of his own skin color because of his power as an officer. He sees the civilians, especially those in "the hood", as lower or inferior to him and he feels like he has dominance over them. I think that the white community is to blame for this type of behavior because of their hatred and segregation that they have caused for the black community.

Posted by kapla137 at 5:26 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I’d like to say that society as a whole has finally reached the point where there is no distinction between people of different race. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Kitwana’s states that “contemporary discussion of race in America, locked in a 1960’s-style civil rights time warp, has failed to consider how young Blacks are affected by unique social forces that have created problems different from those of our parent’s generation� (122).

It is true that American culture has progressed tremendously with respect to civil rights, but equality from every angle has still not been achieved. Today’s issues are more related to racial image rather than racial rights or equality. Movie’s like Boyz ‘N The Hood are an example of this. Often popular movies that focus on “the hood� focus on drugs and violence (rightfully so). That in itself is fine. The problem comes in when drugs and violence are associated with specific races in a glorified fashion. Hollywood glorifying drugs and violence with respect to specific races is a major cause of what I’m calling discrepancies between “racial image�. So, to get back to Kitwana’s quote, I believe what is meant by it is that the unique social forces that young blacks face today are related to racial image rather than racial rights and that Hollywood plays a key role in perpetuating the problem.

Posted by John Erck at 5:26 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

As a more comedic and sappy drama film watcher I didn't think I would like this film, but it has become on of my top films ever to be watched. I enjoyed watching the power of each individual event occurring with in the film. I was rather skeptical at first when I heard we were going to watch it, but I felt that it was rather gratifying to be sucked into as a viewer. It's a great film to get a sense of community under, because this film not only idetifies a gang, but a community.

Today we look at our gangs and think they are all bad and cause ruckus throughout the cities. We seem to think that in the life of a gang it's all about drugs, violence and power. It's also seen a stereotype we have is that in a certain part of the city you can't wear a certain color because you may create a disagreement among the gang members. In Boyz N the Hood they show that the gang is much more than an average drug group, it gives certain folk a community feeling. As a gang member in this film they were grown up in a suppressive environment and not able to achieve a common good for themselves. Bakari Kitwana states "Blacks are born into a brave new 'hood, in which no one, neither society or even our own parents, are doing enough to bring about social change." This is part of the reason they join a gang is for the citizenship and loyalty to their other members. You can view that it's a sign of community when you see one looking out for another person's child in the street or watching one another's back in a street fight. They even have celebrations for an ex-con's return to home. It's a way of life with laws, practices and values to make sure it's kept a safe haven for other members of the gang. It's a community!!

Posted by carr0445 at 5:24 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This is possibly the most intense movie we've watch so far this semester and possibly the most important given that stereotypes and misconceptions about what is going on in the ghettos still exists today. It's true that the violence is real, but most people don't understand or try to understand what causes it and choose to simplify it by saying it's because of the people. Doughboy says it best at the end when he says: "Either they don't know... ...don't show... ...or don't care about what's going on in the 'hood." Moreover, people overlook the good and focus on the negative.

In "Young, Don't Give a Fuck, and Black", Bakari Kitwana discusses how Boyz in the Hood shows the good things that go down in the ghetto. Specifically the unconditional, resilient love of a community-- one that watches out for a crackhead's babies in street, one that celebrates an ex-con's return home, one that takes in a baby momma, and the lack of peer pressure-- Tre, despite his middle class status and good grades, is accepted as one of the crew by the less fortunate. And even though they live a life of violence it's not because they choose to do so, it's because they don't know any other way to live. Doughboy is a good example: he doesn't go looking for violence, it finds him. And though he pursues and kills his brother's killers, he does so because it's the code of the street. He recognizes that it's not the best course of action as we see at the end when he confesses he doesn't know how to feel about what he did and when he dumps out the rest of his alcohol on the street as though to show he is considering turning a new leaf, but it's hard to escape the vicious cycle of the hood as he well knows because: "shit just goes on and on, you know. "

Posted by bergm150 at 4:40 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I think Boyz n the Hood is an excellent film that captures the role of being a black urban male youth, but I definitely agree that it ignores the perspective of females. It is necessary to temper this criticism with the statement that I don't think a single work can or should be expected to address all intersections of race, gender and class, so I think that Boyz n the Hood does the best it can with the limited amount of time and limited narrative structure.
The use of degrading language toward women is crucial to the authenticity of the film, but isolates women from the tough street life enjoyed by the men in the film. Women are used almost as decoration in the film-- they are present in every major scene but rarely make a real impact on the outcome of the narrative arc. The fil was misogynistic at times, with respect to references that Tre needed to be "taught how to be a man" or how he felt less like a man because he wasn't having sexual relations with his girlfriend. Her struggle between wanting to wait until marriage and peer pressure seemed largely ignored because it was only addressed in one conversation, even though it is a major issue of conflict. In terms of pregnancy, we see pregnant women and occassionally see Ricky's girlfriend and child, but they are mostly in the background.
Because the women aren't specifically implicated in the violence, had the film been told from their perspective, we would have seen more of the daily struggles like trying to raise children as a single mother, paying for food and drug addictions, dealing with pressure to have sex and a more in-depth look at the consequences of gang violence and losing a male member of the family. The issues the film addressed were very important, but ultimately a gender-based intersectional analysis of the community is necessary for a holistic view of the trials and tribulations of growing up poor in the "hood".

Posted by vieir013 at 4:33 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The policeman's hatred of the "hood" can be attributed to the negative way that the community affected his image to non-blacks. He hates the way that their actions reflect on their race as a whole, however, instead of taking a proactive approach, he ridicules and tears them down further, stating that he wished Furious had killed the robber because then there would be "one less nigger on the street." This at first appeared strange to me as one would think that a black policeman would stand up for his race and brutality against and among his race, but instead he contributes to it. In his article, Chan quotes Naddell who stated that "In acting violently toward another Black person, the individual may be aggressing against a hated aspect of self, Blackness." (41) I somewhat disagree with this. The black men didn't hate their blackness, they hated the aspects of their somewhat segregated black society. They weren't integrated into "white society" because of a vicious cycle that they were born into. No matter how hard they tried, as evidenced in Tre's character, they couldn't seem to break out of the hood. His mother managed to become successful in the business world, but in doing so, she was unable to raise her child in the way she wanted. Furious made his boy into a "man," but Tre was still exposed to all of the negative aspects of the environment he grew up in. He was also subject to the same stereotypes the other, less ambitious, members of his neighborhood were, like when the officer put the gun to his neck and intimidated him. He had done nothing wrong, but was automatically put into the same category as a "young nigger" who brought nothing but trouble on their society. The movie does not show the black man hating his blackness, but rather shows the black man hating the actions of other blacks which in turn brings racism and further discrimination upon the entire race.

Posted by marsh401 at 4:17 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I don’t believe Singleton ignored the roles of women in this film at all, he could have shown their roles in the lives of their men more in depth, but I don't think he ignored them. Throughout the film, women are portrayed as the caretakers of the family. They are the ones that are shown supporting their children. Tre’s mother sends him to live with his father because she wanted to make money to eventually be able to support Tre. Doughboy and Ricky’s mother is supporting them along with Ricky’s girlfriend and child. She holds their family together by letting them live under her roof, letting them eat her food, and letting them hang out in her house. As mentioned in Kitwana’s article, “Parents may not be perfect and at times fit into neat stereotypes (such as welfare mothers), but they hold their families together as best they can� (125). By letting Ricky live under his mom’s roof, she lets him pursue his lifetime goal of becoming a football player. She takes care of his child while he tries to make his dream come true. And even Doughboy is important to her, though she doesn’t always show it. She lets him and his friends stay there and hang out at her house, even though she knows what they are into, she never kicks him out because she cares about him.
This film would be different if it was told from the viewpoint of women. It would have obviously shown more of the impact violence has on the home life and what life is like inside the home instead of on the streets. Women’s stories would have more of an emotional side because it is their husbands, brothers, and sons being shot and killed right in their own neighborhood and they can't do anything to stop it. It is the women who have to pick up the pieces of what is left and try to put it back together. They don’t have a choice as to what their boys do, they can only try and convince them to do otherwise.
Singleton didn’t ignore the women but simply showed the viewers the role they have in society at this time and in the lives of the young men involved in these violent acts.

Posted by ruff0046 at 4:14 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The film Boyz-n-the Hood fits squarely within the post-hippy 1960's self hating white ideology that filmmakers and audiences in the 90's loved so much and still love today. I get the feeling that whites audiences really love to prostrate themselves to victims of any kind and always manage to find themselves as the group to blame. I enjoyed the part in the beginning which was actually just a fleeting moment but it said so much about American culture. The part I am thinking about was the scene with the white lady teacher who has a monotone voice that makes her sound like she is evil or a part of the "system" and must be resisted no matter what. This has particular effect when she talks to Tre's mother on the phone. The situation is set up as she can be disposed by Tres mother a black woman any way she wants to because she is white and an intellectual. But maybe more because she is not even pictured, we just hear her voice on the phone. It is easy to not take intellectuals or white people seriously if you don't even have to see them. The anti-intellectualism that Americans are so famous for is examplified nicely in this scene. Clearly it is not just a racial phenomenon. Also, the fact that the mother si getting a Master's degree and the girlfriend of Tre is also studying is an accurate construction of females being more educated than males. That is also not a racial phenomenon but includes women across the racial spectrum here. The other family characteristic that I liked was the contrast between the family with boys who had a father and the one across the street who didn't and how that effected the way the boys developed and who they became. One could also argue that that is also not limited to race. Single mothers raising sons is an extremely common phenomenon now. In the required reading Chan mentions a major obstacle for black especially men in progressing into a more successful condition. "A deep-seated distrust in the political and social bureaucracy is a natural extension
of the frustration that African Americans feel, particularly in light of capitalism's
complicitous links to the narcotics network and of the oppositional potentialities of
racially inspired conspiracy theories. This distrust is intensified by an insidious and
often subtle racism that permeates the system and that hinders many frorn rising
beyond the economic state they are born into." It is really easy to blame whites for the status quo but sensible blacks like Bill Cosby know everything can't be blamed on white people which is so fashionable to do because it is so easy and requires no restraint, critical thinking, and instantly absolves one from any accountability. This is another claim that Chan makes in his article. The idea of autodestruction of blacks from self-hatred and angst from lack of prospects. This is almost like a self destructive behavior from a lack of self esteem. Nothing exemplifies this better than the use of the "N" word so much and a lack of respect for each other. It is worth mentioning also the mother of doughboy doesn't seem to show as much respect for doughboy as for his brother. Undoubtedly it is because she percieves that he has options for a better future and doughboy doesn't. Or at least he doesn't show any interest in creating opportunities for himself. But again, without a father it is hard to teach oneself how to become a man.

Posted by dahme012 at 3:54 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The decision of Tre’s mother to leave Tre with his father is one that I believe is a product of social rituals that prevail over society. This ritual says that a boy can not become a man without a strong male influence. This standard was made clear by Tre’s father when he explains it to his son and outlines the importance of a stern hand by a man to his son. By making the decision to send her son to live with his father she is choosing to adhere to this standard. Her decision was justified in her mind because she believed the she was doing the best for herself in enabling her to finish her schooling to better Tre’s life by giving him the chance to learn the importance of manhood from his father. In her mind she was not abandoning him; she was allowing him as well as herself to grow and potentially better themselves. I believe that this message is extremely central to the film. The characters who grew up with out a father figure, like Doughboy and Ricky have negative outcomes while Tre lives and eventually goes on to find love and a future. This decision is presented in the film as a wise one but in the real world may be seen as an unwise decision on Reva’s because it diminishes a woman’s role in the development of young men.

Posted by swanx058 at 2:47 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

To start off, the score for Singleton's Boyz 'N The Hood was sweet. That theme that would play when something terrible was about to happen reminded me of the Cure and had no place in the movie, but was very pleasing nontheless. Sorry for that little blurb but does anyone agree with me? ANYWAY, Boyz N' The Hood painted a pretty clear picture for me of what LA life must have been like for blacks during the late 80s-early 90s; a time of riots and uprisings not much different than those that occurred during the 1960s. This saddens me deeply. The fact that little had changed over the years for the black community in Los Angeles and the fact that nobody seemed to give a damn upsets me and reinforces the fact that racism is still a major problem in the United States, even though we hear little about the problems that I know are still occurring. That being said, this film did not reflect a sense of nihilism at all to me, for being nihilistic requires choosing to believe in nothing at all. The underprivileged black youths in Boyz N' The Hood really didn't seem to know that there in fact WAS a different way to live. They were raised with no opportunities because of suppression and isolation not of their own faults, and that mindset obviously followed them throughout their often short lives. Each character in the film could've been something wonderful if only given the opportunity to shine. These unfortunate kids are products of their environments and for the most part, strive for nothing because nothing is all that they know. They are not nihilists! They are simply and tragically unfortunate. Break the cycle and watch them flourish.

Posted by probe001 at 2:24 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

As we witness Ricky being killed by fellow rivals, like Tre, we experience the wrath of revenge. Our emotions and feelings of this act of hate will lead to more hate as the cycle of violence continues. If I had to experience my best friend's death in front of my eyes, several questions would arise. What did he do to cause this act of hate? Was this the best way to resolve a dispute? Walking in the house with Ricky's dead body would only lead to anger in my eyes as revenge would be the only answer. The endless talks with Furious would not matter as I would risk my life to get revenge. This is exactly how Tre was feeling. The only thing that would stop me is seeing Furious's look of disappointment. Everything that I stood for would be meaningless if I would have helped commit murder in act of revenge and the cycle of violence would complete another revolution. Boyz ‘N The Hood portrays the lives of many that live in places, such as Los Angeles, where lives seem meaningless. Bakari Kitwana states "Blacks are born into a brave new 'hood, in which no one, neither society or even our own parents, are doing enough to bring about social change." Police are shown watching the neighborhood in the film like it is a prison, having helicopter view the ground as the police drive in the streets. Boyz ‘N The Hood help show the audience the average day in what a man, particularly a black man, has to go through in order to stay alive. Going to school is very uncommon, teenage pregnancy, and death is part of the package of living in this kind of neighborhood. There are not a lot of fathers, such as Furious in the lives of young black males. Single mothers are being forced to raise their own kids without the help of a father. The life these young adults live everyday is like a third war country that isexperiencing a civil war it seems.

Posted by Anthony Zerka at 2:05 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Boyz ‘N the Hood was one of the most thought-provoking films we have watched this semester as it addresses a number of social and economic disparities that are still a factor today. I cannot imagine the stress and hopelessness young black men and women growing up in the ghetto face, and this film represents much of what is wrong with American society, blacks and whites included. Imagine living your life in such constant fear and oppression, with little hope of escape. This film makes me appreciate how fortunate I am to be able to go to school, have a good job, be married, and ultimately have so many options afforded to me. It also makes me wonder why life has to be so cruel and unfair to so many.

When Tre jumps in the car with Doughboy and the others to avenge Ricky’s death a number of ideas jumped to mind. Why would Tre take this action? Throughout the film we see him make wise decisions and make attempts to better his situation. Instead, in a moment of rage, he goes against his father’s wishes to risk his own life. By getting in the car, Tre faced the retaliatory danger that killed Ricky, and eventually Doughboy. Nadell writes about this aggression amongst black youth in the ghetto when he writes “In acting violently toward another Black person, the individual may be aggressing against a hated aspect of self� (460).

While this statement might apply to Doughboy, I don’t think it holds true for Tre. Doughboy was caught in the vicious cycle of hopelessness that most disadvantaged blacks faced-little education, social and economic oppression, and constant trouble with the law. Doughboy lived by the code of the streets, even if it meant his ultimate demise. Tre, on the other hand, was merely reacting to the rage of losing his best friend. Fortunately he was able to come to his senses and get out of the car before he ended up in a situation that would endanger his life and everything he had worked so hard for.

I would like to think that I could be as brave as Doughboy and as smart as Tre in this situation, but in reality I don’t think I would have jumped in the car. Maybe that makes me scared, I don’t know, but at least like Tre I would still be alive.

Posted by char0018 at 1:13 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

If this movie was shown by the views of women it would have been a complete 180. The first thing I noticed was that there were more women going onto college then their were men. Even in the first scene it shows that the mother is highly educated and is clearly “above� the actions that are taking place around her. The violence would not have been so predominate if women perspective had been told. I also think that the emotional perspective would have been shown more. If it upset the men like it did, then I’m sure the women struggled a lot more. And they weren’t just sitting there and taking the vulgar comments coming from the men that are supposed to be their friends. Instead they often questioned why they call them bitches, and usually a hit on the shoulder would follow. The biggest problem they would face is that they are the ones that are loosing their sons, fathers, and husbands.
Ricky’s killing wasn’t meaningless. He had a son that needed to be shown how to be a man. He had a football career ahead of him; his way to get out of all the violence. And even though Doughboy wasn’t respected or acknowledged by his mom. He had spent most of his adolescence behind bars, but I still don’t think his death was meaningless. He was the ring leader; even in jail he ran the show. Every person has a role, whether it's to be better and get out, or stay back and take care of your boys. But how can a corrupt city come to harmony; when all of the good people are leaving?

Posted by robak003 at 12:14 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Between this weeks movie Boyz ‘N the Hood and last weeks film Talk to Me there is a vast difference in the roll of the black character in society. In Talk to Me the black character embodies the average civil rights activist who is passionate and nonviolent about the rights they are trying to gain. We see this power arise out of a coming together as a community and society to overcome obstacles. But in the film Boyz ‘N the Hood it’s almost the exact opposite of what we would see portrayed in the 1960’s film category.

Instead of banning together as a black community, in this film it seems that the African American population is more segregated that ever, and takes a step backwards in what was historically the goal of being integrated and equal within society. What’s also shown is a lack of zest for life; many of the characters, especially when faced with animosity, give the idea that it’s just easier to throw it all away than to fight to make things better. They have that sense of unending hopelessness, as if it were their unchangeable fate to live like this. Kitwana portrays this idea when he says, “there is a prevailing sense among black youth that our parents, like American society, have failed us.� With this sense of failure, comes a hopeless view of the world that black youth cannot seem to overcome.

Allison Veire

Posted by veire003 at 12:04 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The black police officer really stood out to me throughout the film. He seemed to have a great deal of internalized anger toward the black youths in the film. Our first encounter with him was after Tre’s mother had taken him to live with his father. There is a robber that breaks into Furious’s house one night and when he calls for the police, not only does it take them an hour to get there, but this black police officer was also one of the dispatched men. When he gets there, he automatically exhibits an angry power trip over Furious. Furious is upset that his son has been waiting outside in the cold for an hour and the officer just snaps at him for questioning his authority. The officer then proceeds to ask Furious if he shot the intruder. Furious says that he shot at him, but missed as he got away. The black officer then says, “too bad you didn’t get him; it’d be one less nigga out here in the streets.� I believe that part of this officer’s attitude has to do with his ego of being an officer of the law. He is black, but he still has authority over civilians, especially over the black civilians in “the hood�. Chan refers to this as the “internalization of racial hatred the black man sees in his blackness� (41). This is the other part of this officer’s attitude toward blacks, particularly toward the black youth of “the hood�. The officer sees these “ghetto hoodlums� as perpetuating racism toward blacks. In other words, it is these black youths that give reputable black civilians, such as himself, a bad reputation. I also think that his actions might be due to an aggression that he cannot take out on the actual cause of his anger. It seems that he has so much internalized hatred for the black youth, however, I think it is truly his anger against the white institution that is the reason racism exists. As a black man, he cannot take his anger out on whites, but he has no problem taking all this built-up aggression out on the black youths of “the hood�.

-Hasti Fashandi

Posted by fash0016 at 10:42 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The film, Boyz 'N The Hood, bring new realities of the poor inner city and how the community in that city is dealing with it. However, the film shows little about the women in that community and how they are affected by it. I think that the women's perspective is ignored throughout the film. The only taste we get about how women deal with what is occuring is Tre's mother. We just briefly see that she has a job, however being educated is looked down upon for women. We get a sense that women have no power or say over anything in the community.

Women are often referred to as "bitch" and "whore" by the main characters in this film. I personally do not appreciate when men refer to women in that way but I think in this case it is done to protray power. The women would often ask why when they were called those names but never got a straight answer. They do not like being called those names but do not stand up for themselves.

I think the film would have been very different if told from the women's point of views. I think it would be interesting to see how the women are coping with what is going on and how they feel about it. I think the film would have a slightly different tone and the viewer would get a better grasp on how the women are mistreated.

Posted by pelt0071 at 10:41 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Boyz N The Hood captures viewers by surfacing the socioeconomic hardships African Americans face in “the hood.� While several aspects of the film were shocking and dispiriting to know people actually struggle with these tribulations in everyday life, it is disheartening to actually see the police’s reactions and responses to the people who live there. The black police officer seems to be more aggressive towards the youth than the white officer; Chan suggests that one explanation for “internalizing racist stereotypes� may be due to, “the racial hatred the black man sees directed at his blackness and the rechanneling of that hatred toward members of his own race� (41). What Chan is trying to convey is that this internalized racial aggression may be a product of self-loathing brought on by white, middle-class oppression.

Posted by riva0067 at 9:58 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The film Boyz 'N The Hood follows Tre through a great challenge/rite of passage in his life. Having trouble in school and getting into fights, Tre's mom decided he needs more of a father figure in his life and leaves him with his father for a few years to mature. There, Tre learns what it's like to be a real man and not fall into the traditional pattern of urban living that has taken hold of his friends. Because of this, we see many different types of personalities in the African-American characters. Some, such as Furious and Tre, see the futility of gang life. Others, such as Doughboy, feel that the gang life is all they have. They were born in the hood, and they'll never get out of it, so the best way to deal with that is to be an icon within the hood. Because of this, I can understand why some would argue that the movie demonstrates the sense of nihilism in black culture. many characters are just out for a quick fix, and don't care who they have to step on or over to get it. There are very few times in the movie where Doughboy is not seen with a beer, and never can a girl walk by without getting stared at. Guns are shown as symbols of masculinity.
Ironically, Furious is the most level-headed character in the film. He guides Tre the best he can away from the thug life. Furious may not be able to get out of the hood, but he feels a sense of responsibility to get his son out of there. This personality is a stark contrast from those of Doughboy and his posse. The movie is not critical of all urban blacks, but it definitely shows disdain for the thug life. None of the gang members have a 'good' outcome in the movie. The characters that stay away, such as Furious, Brandi, and Tre, all end up with favorable endings. So, while the movie itself does not cast a good light on urban life, it holds a clear message for how to break free of the life that has taken hold of so many urban blacks.

Jeff Batts

Posted by batts002 at 1:09 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

My favorite character in the movie “Boyz n the hood� would undoubtedly be Jason “Furious� Styles. Furious though a strict father to Tre, he molds his son to rise against the adversity that surrounds his growing son. From sex, violence, drugs, and taking responsibility for one’s action Furious is the father figure that characters such as Ricky, Doughboy, and Chris do not have which greatly hinders there ability to succeed in life. Straight from the beginning Furious makes Tre rack the yard while Tre’s friends get to enjoy themselves. Though he is envious of his friends this guiding figure is the main reason that Tre stays out of trouble and goes to college while the rest of his friends are either severely hurt or killed.

One quote that is memorable is when Furious is with Tre by the lake and tells his son “Any fool with a dick can make a baby, but only a real man can raise his children.� The benefit of a strong father figure is evident. That is why Tre’s mother sends Tre to live with his father. Furious also mentions how he does not want to be a thirty year old grandfather to Tre. Tre in the movie is constantly trying to have a sexual relationship with his girlfriend but due to her Catholic faith she holds out. Due to this and Furious remarks about responsibility, Tre does not father a child young like his friend Ricky did.

Another quality that makes Furious an intriguing character is his lack of ignorance. He is not naïve like the other characters; he knows what goes on from living in the hood, to police brutality to sexual promiscuity. It is without doubt that Director Singleton’s was trying to show that a due to a lack of a father figure for most minorities and even whites in the hood there is an ongoing cycle of violence that will repeat itself. Teaching children young about responsibility is the greatest key to getting them to succeed in life.

Posted by dhill004 at 11:39 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The “nihilism of Black youth culture in the form of wanton, blood thirsty, and buck wiling for violence sake, substituted whole sale for the new black youth culture itself (Kitwana 127).� Whether it was a movie set in Compton or just in another city, black people were being portrayed in many different ways amongst the world. An act of nihilism can be related to life without meaning, purpose, truth or value but that is not really what I saw in this film. This film is a perfect example of optimism. These characters are given options to go as far somewhere ever they decide to take routes with high traffic. In other words, history almost repeats itself, with guns and puns for bad words and violence. Even though one of the main characters eventually goes to college, his friend is killed. This movie entering the 90’s at a time where “Blackness was a commodity� made its stratum as the number five film of the year (Kitwana 125). The movie clearly had direction and was made to be something that would have precedent on the rest of the 90’s. They would portray an area known as the hood or something that “is beyond any salvation efforts of reform (Chan 45). This movie more or less shows that with the killing of nearly 12 people and people that would even be so desperate for blow that she would be willing to perform sexual encounters on someone. This is most definitely not a way of salvation but can be at the very least reformed. Without a conscious effort to try there will be only one place to go, this is not the hood but more or less the burial grounds.

Posted by remy0004 at 10:38 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Boyz ‘N The Hood (1991), like other “hood films� of the 1990s, “attempted to entertain while defining an emerging lifestyle (Kitwana, 2002).� The commercial appeal of violence, drugs, and sex were the principal driving forces behind most of these films. In addition to the films main purpose (to make a profit), Boyz ‘N The Hood attempted to uncover society’s ignorance of social forces that were perpetuating the problems of black youth.

Discussions of race were “locked in a 1960’s-style civil rights time warp (Kitwana, 2002).� It was the 1990s; a generation had fought for equality through the civil rights movement, and they had triumphed, so what was the problem? Society somehow failed to consider and plan for the effects of generations of deep-seated racism. As Kitwana states, “for most of our lives, we’ve been hit over the head with the civil rights gains as the monumental achievement of our parents’ generation, but it is evident to us that those gains haven’t secured out inalienable rights (Kitwana, 2002).�

Boyz ‘N The Hood, being driven primarily commercially driven, “falls short of delving into the reasons for unemployment, inadequate education, and urban economic neglect (Kitwana, 2002).� Rather, the film has a conspiracy theory undertone as expressed primarily through the Furious Styles character; “They want us to kill ourselves with booze, drugs, and guns.�

It seems likely that apathy, rather than conspiracy, was what allowed for the downward spiral of drugs and violence in African American youths. But regardless of the truth of the conspiracy theories, as DeParle (1991) notes, the very existence of such theories functions “as a thermometer of the racial antagonism, offering a disheartening reading of racial distrust.� The racial antagonism had to be palpable if, as Chan reports, “In 1990, 60 percent of blacks in New York believe or at least admit the possibility that the easy accessibility of drugs in poor black communities is part of a government conspiracy (Chan, 1998).�

Doughboy seems to have a more accurate assessment of the society’s attitude toward African American youth; “either they don’t know, don’t show, or don’t care about what’s going on in the hood.�

Posted by mayxx145 at 9:09 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This week in class we watched the film Boys ‘N The Hood, which displays the harsh struggles of a community of African Americans. This film takes place in Los Angeles, which was a place where poverty consisted of 45-56% of the population. Los Angeles was also a place where two significant black riots broke out during 1965 and again in 1991, as a result of police brutality towards a black community. Boys ‘N The Hood is one of many “hood� films that have come out to try to show people “what it means to be young and Black in America at the dawn of the new millennium� (Bakari, 122).
Like we talked about in class, the black community during the 1990’s (especially in LA) wasn’t provided with half has much as the white community. They had a bar on every corner and various gun shops but there was no super market to be found, they were provided with inadequate education, insufficient health services, they weren’t provided with enough jobs and as a result of that many of them were poor, along with many other things.
Boys ‘N The Hood serves the purpose to show the outside community, which seems to have no clue, that there are communities within the US that really need some help. My favorite line in the movie is when Darin talks about this issue, after his brother was just killed, when he says, "I watched the news this morning. Either they don't know, don't show, or don't care about what's going on in the hood. They had all this foreign shit. They didn't have shit on my brother, man."

Posted by clay0115 at 8:13 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This was a great movie, and for me a walk down memory lane since everyone back in grade school talked like the people in the movie. The people in the movie are split between two kinds of people, people who want to get out of the hood, and the people who don't like it there but have just grudgingly accepted living there. This point is illustrated by Tre and Doughboy respectively. They both share a great deal of frustration towards living there but only Tre manages to escape near the end when he jumps out of the car on the way to get revenge. He realized that the cycle of revenge was never ending and was the trap that kept people in the hood. Doughboy seemed to have realized it, but he thought that it was his brother who was supposed to find a way out and that he was nothing more than a screw up, a view given to him by his mom. Had I been in the same situation I'm not sure what I would have done. Sure I would have been angry. As a middle class spoiled suburban white kid I probably wouldn't have gone through with killing out of revenge, but if I had spent my life thinking I was trapped in a bad situation with little or no possibility of getting out I probably would kill out of sheer apathy towards continuing my life. The people in the movie must have thought the same way, or maybe they came to the conclusion to kill a different way, point is when you have nothing to lose you are more likely to take risks. But as soon as you fight back someone else will come for you, and Doughboy and his crew new this. At the end he laments that someone will probably come and kill him too now that he has killed, and he was right. How can one get out of the cycle of violence? Tre's answer was probably the best, but just walking away. If you feel you are doomed to be stuck in a bad lot in life, however, this answer doesn't have much appeal since its allowing you to be further disrespected and dis empowered.

Posted by kupp0012 at 7:06 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In response to the criticism that women's issues are ignored in the film, I would first like to point out that the name of the movie is, after all "Boyz n the Hood." I believe that John Singleton's goal was to reach out to young African-American men to help them realize the pointless suffering that results from gang violence, drug abuse and poor education. The film starts with a startling statistic: "‘One out of every 21 Black American males will be murdered in their lifetime’ ‘Most will die at the hands of another Black male’. Singleton focused his attention on the fact that most violent crime is committed by males. By reaching out to black males in particular with an emphasis on the need for achievement and responsibility, he was hoping to end the self-destruction of his community. The film cannot be all things to all people, and I believe Singleton made a conscious choice to focus on the male-perpetuated gang violence. This is not to say that women's issues are ignored. We do see how the violence affects women as well. Mothers and wives all too often had to mourn their loved ones. The drug-using mother who neglected her children represented the non-violent crime that women are more likely to commit. Although the characters frequently referred to the women as bitches and ho's, Singleton does point out the immorality of this through one of his female characters who questioned the usage of these misogynistic terms. I believe Singleton did not completely ignore women, but perhaps did not feel comfortable as a man addressing women's issues. In any case, there is only so much ground one movie can cover, and I feel that "Boyz n the Hood" did an excellent job of addressing the racial tensions that still exist in this country.

Posted by Melissa Green at 12:27 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I've seen Boys 'N the Hood before and everytime Ricky gets shot it gets to me, and then his mom looks at his SATs and he had passed and would have received his scholarship and maybe gotten out of there. Its a pretty upsetting movie to watch. I don't know how realistic the movie is, it seems fairly realistic, but the constant struggles these folks have is crazy. The constant fear of being shot, the drug use with the baby walking in the street and the mom having no clue, the corrupt policeman, the seeming attitude of despair where they characters just look like they have no hope to escape their situation. The movie really brings the struggles of urban America to light.

As noted in the assignment, there are criticizms of the director for ignoring how women are affected by the fractured families, drugs, and gun violence in urban America. I don't know that this is a fair criticizm. In a two hour movie there is only so much ground to cover, and all topics can not be given their due justice. Singleton chose to focus his attention on the lives of Tre, Ricky and Doughboy. He still showed some of the struggles these women face with how Tre's mom is earning her college degree to get out, how Ricky and Doughboy's mom struggles with being a single parent, how the crackhead mom isn't able to care for her own child do to her addiction. The struggles of women in urban America wasn't the focus of the film, but it was evident, and I don't think Singleton should have to appologize for the nature of the film.

Along these same lines, I think he was trying to show how a strong father figure can be a significant factor in the lives of urban youth. The fractured families in these areas are prevalent, and often their isn't a male role model for the boys in these areas to look up to and learn from. Singleton shows how a strong father figure like Furious Styles can shape the lives of the boys in these areas. He seems to be trying to tell the black community to take responsibility for their actions. If a black man has a child, be there to help raise them, be a role model, grow up. Does Furiou Styles have his problems? Yes, but he shows Tre right from wrong and teaches him how to be a responsible person. Tre still screws up from time to time, but because of the strong male role model in his life, he makes better decisions than his friends do. Furious isn't the typical father figure you see on TV and in movies, but he is one of the strongest role models I have seen.

Posted by bela0003 at 8:55 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Bakari Kitwana, who reviewed the film Boyz N’ The Hood, declares that, "Despite his middle class status, Tre is caught up in the same drama faced by his less fortunate peers" (125). Although a majortity of social movements were occurring, and African Americans were beginning to demand equality and power, the youth of society still faced the infinite challenge of fighting for the same rights their parent’s sought after. Although young blacks were not fighting for their civil rights, which Kitwana suggests, but instead, they were fighting for their right to apply those rights to their every day life.

During this time black women not only faced the challenge of fighting for their rights to exercise the same liberties black men endured, but they basically had to advocate for themselves as women; fighting for respect. Throughout the film, women seemed to represent nothing more than sex objects and ultimate screw-ups (such as showing the mistake Ricky’s girlfriend made when becoming pregnant and the consequences to follow). There were hardly any instances within the film when the audience was able to receive a perspective from a women’s point of view, entailing the hardships they endured and the effects that the derogatory language used to describe them had upon them.

Although the film may seem to appear one-sided only detailing perspectives from the black male population, Boyz N’ The Hood was able to demonstrate the continuation of racism and discrimination within the United States. Through illustrations of oppression, the film was able to break down the colorblind barrier and ultimately erasing the notion that racism and discrimination within the world no longer exists.

Posted by eisl0005 at 10:33 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Boyz n the Hood exposed the dynamic of the new, young, black culture in a way that showed the inevitable hopelessness that happens in a system which has failed African American youth. In our readings for this week, “Young, Don’t Give a Fuck, and Black� talks about the nihilism associated with the black youth culture, and relates it to the failure of the new generation’s parents. I would say that this argument holds true today. Despite supposed equal rights and opportunity, African Americans continue to experience racial profiling and prejudice. Boyz n the Hood demonstrates the hypocrisy and failure of “the equal capitalistic system� as if follows along the plotline of Tre, Doughboy, and Ricky struggling to survive in “the hood,� characterized by corruption, drugs, guns, and a kill or be killed mentality. This inability of the ghetto culture to escape the hood despite their good intention (i.e.: college bound, pro athlete etc) is present throughout the film, as they are surrounded by drugs, violence and gang warfare. At the same time, Furius’ career and the interaction between the “Hood� (ghetto) and middle class African American society was shown to delineate between the youth, who are products, and victims of the corruption of the streets (literally sucked-in by the hood), with the more successful middle class who watches their children face violence and drug culture as they kill each other. The Capitalism in Hollywood that Kenneth Chan talks about appears in this aspect as well. Movies had to be made to appeal to the black and white culture because profit and money makes the world spin, even when making controversial movies. We see Tre being sent away to live with a more conservative, strict Furius to escape the troubles he was facing in the hood as a shift towards white conservatism and suburban appeal. Movie makers such as Singleton face the problem of making a profit and a statement at the same time, and while making a statement is meaningful, movies are still being made based on their expected success at the box office.
Boyz n the Hood used violence, drugs, corruption, and the hopelessness of the hood thru the lens of the new , black, gangster culture growing up in a neighborhood that would ultimately lead them to kill or be killed. It’s interesting how rappers and many stars who originally came from “the hood� live in enormous mansions with eight cars and a yacht in the back, while still saying that they’re representing their hood. Many are using their money to make positive changes in poor neighborhoods (Michael Jordan, Ludacris, etc) however, the fact that as soon as they got rich, they got out reinforces the message that Boyz N the Hood is portraying of nihilism, and utterly succumbing to a failed society structure of violence and drugs unless you physically remove yourself from the toxic ghetto environment.

Posted by joh03704 at 9:55 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In looking at how women are treated in the movie “Boyz N the Hood� it’s clear that their story is largely neglected, though it seems appropriate from the title of the movie; it’s not called “Girlz N the hood.�

Most of the time in the film women are called “bitches� and “whores� by the main characters in the film, mostly by “doughboy.� When he calls one girl a whore she gets defensive and ask why he calls her that and says that she is not a whore. He comes back with “fine. Bitch,� and then his mother hit him. When Doughboy later calls that same girl a bitch she asks him again why he does that, and he can’t really explain himself. Though right after they are discussing God and the girl says that God could be a girl, and he says that God couldn’t be a girl because then war and other tragedies wouldn’t happen because it’s not in their nature, so he really gives an off hand compliment to women. The only person who doesn’t use that language is Trey, though he does show apprehension in “crying in front of a female.�

This film would have been very different if told from the perspective of women. It would have been a completely different movie, but it would be worth seeing for that different perspective. It would have been really interesting knowing the viewpoint of doughboy and Ricky’s mother and how she came to be so biased between her sons. Perhaps doughboys father was abuse or something like that and she resents the son for it, or perhaps it is just doughboy’s lifestyle that she finds to unappealing.

It also would have been interesting how women in general were coping since, besides Trey’s mother, no other women appear to have jobs and are raising children on their own. Things seem particularly hard for women because even when they have a job, such as Trey’s mother, they are looked down on and questioned about having a job and being educated. Common stereotypes are pulling all women down. The stress of the situation makes it appear that they turn to drugs for an escape from it all.

Posted by kenne404 at 3:35 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

John Singleton was nominated and won many awards for Boyz ‘N the Hood, and it’s not hard to see why. It’s not that it was full of awesome special effects or had the best \ music, this movie was real. I’m starting to see a theme throughout what we’ve learned in this course that the movies/music/people that are the real, raw truth are the ones that make the most impact.

One of the first scenes in the movie struck me right away. After the burglar tried to break in to Furious’ house, the police show up. First, I was surprised to see a black cop since it was brought up in lecture that there were very few black officers on the LAPD. Then he simply replies that Furious should’ve shot the burglar so there would be “one less n***** out on the street.� I couldn’t believe that he doesn’t say one less burglar/person on the street, but one less n***** on the street. I don’t know if it’s the same cop that pulls Tre over later in the movie, but that scene made me so sick. I didn’t understand exactly what was going on here, mostly because I’ve never been in a situation where I’ve felt oppressed or like a racial minority. Reading Chan’s article made everything a lot clearer for me as he discussed the way that black people would rechannel their oppression and the hatred they feel from others (mostly whites) on other blacks. I can understand how a black cop, who is doing well for himself with a stable job and authority, would get really sick of watching black kids shoot each other on the streets. This makes them look bad and, although it shouldn’t be, is a reflection on the black cop himself. I have so much admiration for Furious, who didn’t let anger overcome him, but instead used his frustrations to do something positive. He worked hard to make Tre a good person, and also to help the black community by helping them fund their houses. It’s too bad that others, such as the black cop, couldn’t rechannel their angers/frustrations towards doing something to help the situation instead of contributing to it.

Posted by osbo0100 at 10:23 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

As far as black thug movies go Boyz N the Hood is not as nihilistic as others. Being the first real black youth culture movie to hit the big screen, the sense of immorality is less prominent than others such as Menace II Society. Kitwana describes that since Boyz N the Hood was the first landmark film in this genre, the others may have misinterpreted its meaning of nihilism while trying to out do it (127). It is easy to see the “human� sides of some of the characters such as Tre, Ricky, and Furious. Furious is a well respected business man who cares very much for his son not unlike Ricky. Here it is obvious to the viewer that both of these characters have a sense of morality because of how they show that they care for their families. Tre shows the audience that he is not nihilistic when he chooses not to go along with Doughboy and the others to get revenge for Ricky’s death. For characters like Doughboy it is difficult to see that he exists more than to just be a thug. Early in the movie he is arrested for stealing, and when he returns he seems unchanged from the seven years spent in prison. Then once the viewer is left thinking that Doughboy is just a heartless thug, in the end of the movie Doughboy surprises the audience by telling Tre that he is not satisfied with how he avenged his brother’s death showing that the movie is really not as nihilistic as the reviewers credit it as.

The underlying feelings of the characters are not so explicit, and could be interpreted as nihilism. An example is when Doughboy and Ricky make fun of Tre for being smart, when they really admire and respect his intelligence. This may be hard, however for the audience to interpret. I think examples like this may have contributed to the negative attitude placed on hip-hop culture by society today. By misinterpreting thug films, such as Boyz N the Hood, young black Americans start following the idea of the thug genre of "young, black, and don't give a fuck" (Kitwana, 130). In turn, then society sees how prominent the young black culture in America is becoming, and tags it with a negative connotation because of all the violence and immorality that comes along with it, which is almost the opposite of the point Singleton is trying to get across with Boyz N the Hood.

Posted by kuni0018 at 9:12 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Comic books have long been used as a form of propaganda in varying degrees. During times of crisis and war, comic books use their ability to impose influence to send out messages to readers concerning various wartime issues. Comic books take into account the use of characters, stereotypes, and story lines to produce a more effective reaction from its readers. The comic books were not limited to a certain age group or class. Children, adults, or anyone in between could read them. They used characters with stereotypical aspects as examples to portray villains in an animated way, while representing true-life enemies in actuality. The artists and writers were able to include complex political and social issues, but in a more obvious form than current movies of the time were able to. The aim and goal of the comic books were to give children hope for the outcome of the war. The comic books were upbeat and patriotic, and through engaging characters were able to help children gain a sense of contributing to the war effort. They called for boys and girls to do their part by collecting scrap paper, metal, war bonds, and to remain aware of secret enemy spies. The comics pushed for involvement of the United States in the war and for an Allied effort. Through the comics, juveniles were able to associate real enemies with those of the animated ones in the comic books. The issue of women in comic books played along the same story line as that of reality. In the comic books women held more domestic type of heroic roles and not those of combat. This was a necessity for many Americans as it was not acceptable for a woman to be in direct combat.
The most famous and patriotic superhero was Captain America. Captain America fought enemies both domestic and abroad. The most distinguishing aspect about Captain America was that he had a sidekick, Bucky Barnes. Captain America, like many other American superheroes had a uniform that consisted of mostly red, white, and blue.
Comic books were successful propaganda in creating support for the troops and also for the United States government. Many comic books were political in nature and covered the frustration of Americans during World War II and the attacks of 9/11. There was a high desire for comic book companies to relate their heroes to greater conflicts against terrorism. Comic book agencies were effective in their attempts to get their message across of support for the U.S. (Cord)

Scott, Cord. Written in Red, White, and Blue: A Comparison of Comic Book Propaganda from World War II and September 11. The Journal of Popular Culture. P. 325 – 341. November 2, 2007.

Posted by mcgui149 at 11:58 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Jon Stratton argues that the record business is driven by an art style which emphasizes the personal, emotional and dramatic through the use of exotic, literary or historical subject matter.
Popular culture has always been a “conversation� between and amongst those that have participated. As in any industry, there are suppliers and consumers. The same concept applies to the record business. What is unique about the record business are the methods and driving forces behind the consumption and supply.

Music is an emotional product. People listen to music because they like not so much the way it sounds, but rather the way it makes them feel. Music therefore cannot be mundane in nature. Each piece of music must fit a certain style or bring out a certain feeling within the listener. In order to satisfy these needs, the music business has tended to lean towards emotional and exotic subject matter.

When listening to music with this in mind, it is easy to hear that the majority of popular music is driven by such emotional and exotic subject matter. This correlates tightly with a lot of the other material we’ve discussed in class. What we’ve seen over the last few decades has been a social shift. The shift has been towards a more open and exotic/eclectic society. It’s difficult to say whether music has played a role in driving this shift or if the music is a reflection of the changes. In truth, it’s probably a combination of both.

Posted by John Erck at 11:47 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The reading, Saving Private Ryan and Postway Memory in America by John Bodnar argues the 1998 movie, Saving Private Ryan by director Steven Spielberg intensely depicts the “brutality of the war� while protect the “image of the American Soldier� (805) Spielberg remembers parts of the war and neglects the rest.

Bodnar explains the war movies of the 1940’s glorified “collective goals over individual one.� The images showed and promoted individual sacrifice for the American people. The American soldiers were represented as the good guys, who don’t want war but are fighting the evils to protect the American freedom for all. The images hardly showed any brutality or death. Hollywood was required by the OWI to make pro-war movie that showed America in a positive image. But the movie Private Ryan “does not say that personal sacrifice is glorious as does or free of death and trauma.� (817) This kind of challenging common war movies ideas started in the 1950’s. During that time the American public started to question war. It became more comprehensible that war was devastating and meaningless. In Noir films Americans can see how they can be just as evil as the enemy. It looked how mankinds acted in time of war, regardless of nationality.

Private Ryan focused on “moral individuals rather than by democratic reforms� (808) The movie exams the pain and the tram of the soldiers and the sacrifices they made, but it follow it up with a larger message that they did not die in vain. “The pain of the American combat soldier is revealed but is ultimately placed within a larger frame of patriotic valor. (806) Bondnar agues that movie looks at the war in a context of individual behavior instead of the larger ideas and values of war. Director Spielberg choice this method of remembering the past in a more individualized way, because of “the conservative politics of the film� I agree with Bodnar that by glorifying the soldiers in movies like Saving Private Ryan, to some degree it also glorifies the war.

I think Hollywood has come a long ways since the 1940 in its depiction of war movies, but there are still some topics that are not covered in the movie because of fear. There are only a few movies at this time on Iraq war and it has been 5 years still not one popular film that directly address the war and the American foreigner policy. Like the movie Saving Private Ryan, the mainstream American media is looking at the war in individual stories like soldiers and the family they left behind, but afraid to challenge the war itself.

Posted by mula0013 at 11:42 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Eric Lott’s “The Whiteness of Film Noir� is thematically based on how within film noir exists heavy undertones of racial differences and the crossing between moral borders based on racial stereotypes. To summarize his thesis, Lott argues that the “specifically racial means of noir’s obsession with the dark side of 1940s American life has been remarkably ignored.� More specifically, Lott states, film noir’s “moral focus on the rotten souls of white folks… constantly though obliquely invokes the racial dimension of this figural play of light against dark.� In other words, Lott asserts that while analyzing film noir, considerations of racial differences are a necessity.

Lott’s article relates the themes and style of film noir to several films, one of which we have close knowledge of, “Double Indemnity.� He points out numerous racial details in this specific film, such as the “black custodians and janitors� of Walter Neff’s workplace, a man who comes into Neff’s workplace with his “Greekness [that] suggests his potential for moral lapse,� and the Mexican restaurant Neff takes Lola to, which apparently makes Neff “now a moral resident of Phyllis’s Spanish house.� I agree that there are several spots where racial differences are remarked and possibly even meaningful to the plot in “Double Indemnity,� however, Lott goes very far in some of his assumptions, tying his ideas together with loaded words and phrases in order to prove his point.

There is mention of the some of the same “influentially racial� instances in film noir in Charles Scruggs’s article, “ ‘The Power of Blackness’: Film Noir and Its Critics� (notice the difference in title choice). Scruggs also points out the same case of the Greek man in “Double Indemnity� and how Barton Keyes fears the “casting [of] a long shadow upon the ‘social fabric’ of his insurance company.� However, Scruggs makes this point for a different reason than Lott, which I believe is merely to demonstrate the possibly racist feelings of the characters in the film, or in general, Americans of the time. Lott takes racial inequalities and their effect on moral behavior and makes them out to be almost the sole symbolic reason behind film noir’s reputation for moral degradation in American society.

Lott says that “[f]ilm noir is a cinematic mode defined by its border crossings,� referring to characters crossing racial and cultural borders and therefore becoming lesser people, in a “condition of moral disrepair,� because of it. True, the morals of society were portrayed rather drastically negative in film noir, but the overall basis for this was not one of race. Lott may argue that “[t]he ‘dark’ energy of many of these films is villainized precisely through the associations with race that generated some of that energy in the first place,� but the real energy behind these films was their style, devious plots new to American film, their deceitful characters, their unique cinematic techniques, and most of all, their mystery.

Posted by joh02361 at 11:13 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

“Beatlemania: A sexually defiant subculture?� by Ehrenreich, Hess, and Jacobs, is an article which discusses how The Beatle’s emergence in American popular culture in the 1960’s started the first real women’s, or more specifically adolescent girl’s, sexual revolution. The article states how young girl’s mobbed, fainted, and otherwise lost all self-control over The Beatles as an act of rebellion against sexual repression, and the sexual double standards, which they had faced all of their young lives. Girls saw The Beatle’s as an outlet which they could finally release all of their pent up sexual aggression on, “To abandon control – to scream, faint, dash about in mobs – was, in form if not in conscious intent, to protest the sexual repressiveness, the rigid double standard of female teen culture. It was the first and most dramatic uprising of women’s sexual revolution� (Beatlemania 524).
The article continues to talk about the mania, and swarms of girls, that surrounded The Beatle’s everywhere that they went. It explains how the mother’s of the girls who were swooning over The Beatle’s probably adored Frank Sinatra, who was the closest thing to a sex symbol in music in the 1940’s, yet they couldn’t accept their daughters infatuation with The Beatles. The article also talks about the idea of how the girls are simply conforming, “They needed to subsume themselves into the mass, ‘to become transformed into an insect.’ Hence, ‘jitterbug, and as Dempsey triumphantly added: ‘Beatles, too, are a type of bug . . . and to “beatle,� as to jitter, is to lose one’s identity in an automatized, insectlike activity, in other words, to obey.’� (Beatlemania 526). Infatuation with The Beatles was what was “in� in the 1960’s, much like yoga and Starbuck’s today; if you weren’t a fan of The Beatles you were considered an outsider. The problem with this, as the authors explain, is the parents of these kid’s had very different ideas of what conforming to society meant. They expected their daughters to be abstinent until marriage, and not “give themselves up� in any way until they had a husband or were in love.
I thought the article was very interesting, and seemed to be very truthful from the movies and other articles I have read about The Beatles. I mean, The Beatles had to stop touring because they couldn’t hear themselves play over the screams. Girls completely changed when they were in the presence of The Beatles. Girls who were once polite became barbarians, it was almost as though girls lost all sense of their old-selves and became a homogenous group of rabid, squeaking maniacs. This barbarism was pointed out well in the article, “In early November, 400 Carlisle girls fought the police for four hours while trying to get tickets for a Beatles concert; nine people were hospitalized after the crowd surged forward and broke through shop windows� (Beatlemania 524). Today this kind of behavior is normal (maybe not to the same extent, but close), or used to be, with groups like Blink 182 and Green Day. It’s a good thing that the “Beatles girls� paved the way.

Posted by ruppx051 at 11:11 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Ehrenreich, et al. contend that the introduction of the Beatles in the early 1960’s was the onset of the female sexual revolution in America. The writers explain that such occurrences of hundreds of young girls screaming and “abandoning control� had never happened to this magnitude, and they argue that this was their way of protesting against the double standard and sexual repression females faced during their time (524). In analyzing why Beatlemania was happening, one suggestion was that it was a major shift for youth conforming with each other so not conform to adult mores and expectations. For young women to show sexual emotions openly was to prove their defiance. They go on to explain that a growing number of youth began to see flaws in the traditional American lifestyle, and that many of them decided they wanted something different. Rock and roll became a channel for youth to freely express themselves, and the Beatles were their inspiration because they promoted, “a vision sexuality freed from the shadow of gender inequality because [they] mocked the gender distinctions that bifurcated the American landscape into ‘his’ and ‘hers . . . [they] blurred the lines and expanded the possibilities� (535).
I found myself referencing this article often in my last paper. The Beatles effect on popular culture in America provided a significant contribution to not only female sexual liberation, but also to inspiring the counterculture as a whole through promoting individuality and openly rebelling against many mores and expectations set by previous generations. Ehrenreich and her colleagues present how and why Beatlemania contributed to the onset of the revolutionary 60’s, primarily the “changing roles of women� and society’s concept of “sexuality and what it means to be a woman� (Arrigo, Culture). The article articulates on the strong conservative values that oppressed free expression, youth’s growing skepticism towards the expected American lifestyle, and the ways in which the Beatles were able to use rock and roll to inspire youth to express their individuality. The article corresponds to lecture regarding the sociopolitical landscape of the nation before the Beatles and rock and roll's effects leading up to the revolutionary era in which greatly contributed to shaping popular culture and politics today.

Posted by riva0067 at 10:57 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

As evident in the Rodney King beating that occurred in 1991 in Los Angeles, racism is still alive in today's society. The brutalities of at least four Los Angeles police officers lead to massive street riots, which resulted in 54 deaths, 2,383 injuries, and devastation to about 3,100 businesses.

As a result, many, especially in the inner city, resent the L.A.P.D, who represents authority. If the police in the film "Boyz 'N The Hood" signify the demeanor of any current Los Angeles police officer, it is not a surprise that police officers are hated in the inner city.

However, the city of Los Angeles has more problems to deal with, aside from the poor relationship the police officers have with LA residents. These issues range from poor transit systems and poor education, to lack of jobs, housing, and food for those especially residing in inner city LA. The effects of these poor living conditions can be observed in the film "Boyz 'N The Hood," which tells the story of an African American boy who grows up in inner city Los Angeles. The film does a great job depicting the hardships of inner city life and how hard it is for an individual to make something of himself in such ruthless surroundings.

For example, author of "Young, Don't Give a Fuck, and Black" Bakari Kitwana (who reviews the film "Boyz N The Hood" in his article) states, " Despite his middle class status, Tre is caught up in the same drama faced by his less fortunate peers" (125). Again showing how hard it is to not be sucked in by the violent patterns of inner city living. As doughboy said at the end of the film, "This shit just goes on and on" referring to the cycle of killing that will not decrease until mass improvements in LA take place.

Posted by dollx040 at 10:51 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Talk to Me is an important film because it depicts African American disc jockey and their role within society and their power they had over their listeners. Through the real life depiction of Ralph “Petey� Greene, the film managed to capture the socio-economical status of African Americans and the division of integrated black and white American society by economical strata. Petey Green an ex-convict, who knows the hard life and what it’s like to be living in the bottom and seeing drug addicts and hustlers, manages to get a job through Dewey, an African American who has a fairly respectable job in the radio station. Despite Dewey’s economical success relative to other African Americans, he seems to be constantly holding his real self back and trying to blend in with the White folks in the station. He works for a White boss, he watches the Tonight Show to copy the attitude and behavior of a white man. Despite having more economic freedom, he is still much tied down to racial hierarchy. On the opposite, Petey Greene lives free-er, than any other Black characters on the film. He says what he thinks, despite of raging White superior within the station, and through his bravery and stubborn ways to “keep it real� he ultimately gains the respect from Black and White folks alike. In this sense, Dewey looks up to Petey and because unlike him, he is not “afraid to say the things�. Dewey who dress and mannerism emulates White Americans, admires Petey for being able to dress like a Black man, and talk like a Black man, because Dewey too comes from the black neighborhood and roots from there. Petey’s word reflects exactly what society is like from a black man’s stance, and if anyone calls him a racist for saying whatever he did, that person would most likely be not black and is ignorant to racism.
The power of Petey is especially apparent when Martin Luther King Jr. is assassinated and Washington D.C. goes up in flame. He understood the emotional status of his listeners, and despite desires to rely on violence and aggression, he is able to calm the mass down and to act in much more peaceful manner because violence would only lead to bad things.

Posted by lungx009 at 10:44 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In general in this article the author Jon Stratton argues thethat the requirement to assert the individual in the face of the anti-structural versus the structural, is informed by the cultural manifestation romanticism and is fundamentally affected by economic capitalism.
In essence the music industry often repetitively plays the same set of music and music over and over forming stereotypes through repetition. This repetition makes the music popular and thus increases that type of music’s marketability and makes it easier to sell, thus enhancing the capitalist practice in the music industry. At this same time if no Romanticism was used thus driving the new types of music to be formed the field would become stagnant and thus profits would decrease. For this reason Romanticism is necessary for the success of capitalism as it gives new types of music that are repeated making new stereotypes. Also this gives small companies the ability to make their own stereotypes and thus become very successful.
He also argues that people want to be individual in their music choice while also listening to what is popular. It is a key balance for things to be marketed in such a way that people get this impression. When people can listen to a music that is fun to listen to, popular, and lets them feel individual at the same time it is very successful.
This topic ties in very well to what we have done in class. The American dream is to be popular and have lots of things, while at the same time being able to be who you want to be and do whatever you want. This type of marketing and the formation of music popularity fits right into that American Dream especially during the 1940-1960 period. After this people started to become disenchanted with this idea and away from capitalism.
As we discussed in class the development of new technologies such as the radio and the television vastly increased the ability of marketers to set stereotypes with their marketing. This furthered the capitalistic drive for the use and production of music, while at the same time make it easer for the new music to become popular and set it’s own trends as it could spread and become established much faster. This easy spread of new ideas vastly increased the spread of new music and romanticism. This further spread of new ideas served to increase even further the capitalistic goals of music producers.

Posted by andre368 at 10:34 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Just a brief aside to my original post…I know this puts me way over the 500 word mark, but I thought it might be worth sharing…

I took my daughter to the Children’s Museum in St. Paul this afternoon. Her favorite story characters right now (and I have to admit, one of mine too) is Cookie Monster. Well, it just so happens that he and his pals from 123 Sesame Street are on exhibit there through the end of April. Now, I vaguely remember that Anthony quickly mentioned their 1969 debut in one of his five minute romps through history back in February, but it was not until I took in the exhibit that the significance it all clicked together.

Scattered throughout the interactive displays geared for the kids was a chronological stroll through the political and social events of the past thirty years for the adults. There was even a picture of Hillary backing Big Bird dated 1995 when Gingrich and his cohorts were pushing their “Contract with America�, which included pulling the plug on funding for PBS.

The reason I wanted to mention this is because it weaves directly into the theme of childhood propaganda that was discussed in the article I reviewed. The baby boom generation created this vehicle to provide alternative programming to their children (and their children’s children). Rather than the “red, white, and blue� morality that their parents absorbed via the wartime comics as kids, our parents left a legacy stressing the ideals of the liberal revolution of their adolescence.

Posted by skog0031 at 10:21 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

What Kitwana means by, “a 1960’s-style civil rights time warp,� is that young blacks are still fighting for their rights just as their parents did before them. However, the fights they are fighting for are different from their parents. They are not fighting for their civil rights, but rather their right to exercise these rights and come up in the world. This is especially apparent in Boyz 'N the Hood through the characters of Tre, Ricky, and Doughboy. Tre is fighting for his rights because although he is from the hood, he is still intelligent and success bound, while Ricky is college bound despite his teenage father status. Doughboy is the most interesting solider in the film because he fights to stay alive and live his life.

I agree that the role of women was largely ignored, but traces of it still existed in Tre’s girlfriend, Ricky’s baby’s mother, and Ricky’s mother. We briefly view the difficulty of being a single mother and the decisions teenage girls must make. The constant verbal degradation of women is exactly that degradation, but it does help the movie stay true to life because, sadly, those words are commonly used to describe women.

Boyz in the Hood is the exact opposite of a nihilistic film because of the struggles and hardships overcome by Tre. It is not about the boyz existence being meaningless, but rather to show how it is wasted. They could accomplish greatness if they were allowed the chance to live, but most of them end up dying.

In Tre’s position, I would have done the opposite of what he did because I don’t think that lowlife thugs should get away with murdering a decent young man who was my friend. I was a little disappointed that he didn’t go because he disrespected his homie by letting those guys get away with murder. I can easily understand the cycle of violence because bloodshed will always lead to more bloodshed, and if one person won’t do it, then another will, because the need for revenge and love for your family and friends are both strong feeling that cannot be disregarded.

Posted by nels5175 at 10:10 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Bodnar argues that the narrative of heroism, patriotism, and democracy that permeated wartime America began to decompose immediately in the aftermath of World War II.
Bodnar discusses many different war films from the 1940’s in the OWI era all the way to Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan. He takes an in depth look at the meaning behind all of the different films. Some of the films, such as Crossfire, depict soldiers as being brutal and bringing their brutal ways back from war with them where they engage in illegal activity and even murder. In the film Battleground, soldiers are seen as beaten and bruised. They are ready to endure some kind of flesh wound so that they may be able to get shelter at a field hospital or maybe even go back home. Bodnar also looked at the film Champion in which a man throws away his relationships with his family and friends for a chance to become a boxing king. Bodnar looks at this film because of the hidden metaphor for the pursuit of fame and wealth. This metaphor is also seen in the film All My Sons where an industrialist puts profit before patriotism and country. This eventually results in faulty parts for planes that were used during war. American soldiers lost their lives because of his greed and he eventually takes his own life because of the guilt felt by his actions and consequences. Bodnar argues that films are becoming more about individual struggles and heroism rather than looking at the whole war itself. Saving Private Ryan is a good, modern example of this idea. Tom Hank’s character devotes his war effort to finding Ryan and bringing him home to his family.
I enjoyed reading this article because it shed new light on the many different themes and idea of war and how it is interpreted and remembered. Bodnar takes many different films from many different eras and looks at each one and the messages that are being displayed to society. I agree that war films need to be centered more on factual events and the individuals who really made a difference during these trying times. The truths about war are usually not told. The OWI did a tremendous job of covering up what war was really like and censoring the information that society was and heard. Sahara was one of the films of its time that made the U.S. look kind and powerful. The time frame that it was set in was somewhat interesting however. There would have never been a Black man fighting with the U.S., no matter which country he was from. The film also depicted the powerful, six or so, American soldiers fighting off hundreds of Nazi soldiers. The public has a right to know what their loved ones are fighting for and what is actually going on in other countries that their country is involved in. Films need to take the harsh reality and portray it to the public more effectively rather than jazzing it up to make the United States always look like the ‘good guys’. Our country needs to admit, especially to our own people, that we have done some very inhuman and terrible things, but that it happened and we need to own up to it. Our country is not proud of what we did, but it was something that did happen and society has a right to know the truth. Vietnam is a great example of a war that should never have happened. It is also a war that most Americans do not know that we lost.

Posted by hanl0083 at 10:09 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

By: Elizabeth Bassett

Throughout the movie Boyz ‘N The Hood, the majority Black male opinion is clearly exemplified. With this strong emphasis on the male population, however, this movie has been accused of disregarding the black female voice of the time period as they were affected by the fractured families, drugs, and gun violence that were a stark reality within their culture.
During the course of the movie, I felt that the women’s perspective was largely ignored as women were portrayed through the eyes of the male opinion. The overall sense I received was that of women focusing on physical beauty. As long as a girl was cute and attractive, she could get a man and everything would be fine. School for females was very rarely mentioned and no scenes of girls studying together were portrayed in the movie. Only one mentioned the goal of higher education as most seemed to accept the reality that they would stay home and have babies for the rest of their lives. Men constantly talked about the “fine-looking� females that were around and seemed to view them as sex objects as the persistent chatter about “getting it on� could be heard within numerous male front porch discussion groups.
Tre often appears as the exception to this in the movie as he treats women around him differently than his male cohorts. One of the best examples of this takes place at the barbeque to celebrate Doughboy’s homecoming. As all of the guys rush to grab plates, Tre suggests that they act as gentlemen and allow the women to go through the line first. At times in the movie, however, Tre breaks the mold of letting women have a voice. This is visible as Brandy states that she wants to be a virgin when until she is married. To this, Tre still attempts to pressure her into having sex with him. This diminishes his credibility as, although he may not pressure as far as his friends, he fails to understand and respect her opinion as a female.
Name calling is another area in which the movie ignores the opinion of women. Throughout the movie, many of the males use “bitch� or “ho� when speaking to or with the ladies and “mother-fucker� when talking to their fellow brothers. Although this does not bother the men and is widely accepted as names for each other, the women do not seem to appreciate their slang names to the same extent. One example of the ignorance of the movie in portraying the women’s opinion is at the barbecue when one of the men calls a girl a “bitch.� Her reply is “I am not a bitch� to which Doughboy responds by calling her a “ho.� She continued to be displeased with both names, but Doughboy simply brushes aside her frustration and carries on with the party.
Overall, I believe the movie would have been very different had it been written with a stronger female influence. One of the main themes of the movie is the trial of the men at that time in relation to violence, school, and supporting a family. However, the female’s trials are unspoken and unresolved in the movie as they slip into the shadows of their male counterparts. Anti-violence may also have been a more common theme as the women appeared disgusted with the violence as evidenced by a girl stating “can’t we have one night without you boys getting in to a fight.�

Posted by basse044 at 10:04 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In the article, “Nothing You Can See That Isn’t Shown: The Album Covers of the Beatles,� Ian Inglis not only argues the large influence the Beatles’ music had on society, but he also points to their forms of creative designs displayed in their album covers, and the dynamics it led to. Inglis states that, “The album cover might therefore be approached as a historical relic whose chronology can be precisely located, in much the same way as other ancient arte-facts, such as the chronometer� (Inglis, 96). Inglis provides a brief history/background of the importance and role of album covers, including protection, forms of advertisement, accompaniment to the music, and finally, a commodity such as commercial art. Inglis then continues on to examine the ways in which the visual images presented on the Beatles’ album covers readily interlinks with their musical production, displaying anything from a fundamentally conservative appearance to distorted faces.

While some authors we have read throughout the semester, such as Walley and Stark, have held negative views of the Beatles (claiming that their success was solely based on the rebellion of youth) and the influence they had on society, Inglis points out the connection they were able to make not only through their music, but through their ability to provide innovation to not one, but their entire collection of album covers. During a time when social movements were occurring, especially the women’s sexual revolution, the Beatles were able to provide “a physical link between [their] visual image and recordings, which in some way reflected the Beatles' current musical and professional identity� (Inglis, 85). In fact, Inglis even credits the imagery and creativity of the Beatles’ album covers to the expansion of the graphic design industry. With the invasion of Beatlemania in the United States, the Beatles were able to represent a “Fab Four� identity, illustrating a casual and playful style (Inglis, 86). As well, the Beatles were able to use their album covers to distinguish between different periods of time, and they transformation they were enduring. For instance, on the covers of With The Beatles and Beatles For Sale, all four members have stretched and distorted faces, perhaps symbolizing their immersion into the drug scene.

Thus, this article clearly examined various aspects discussed in class, especially the role the Beatles played in the transformation of society. Through their playful yet meaningful lyrics and image, the Beatles were able to encourage the youth of the 60’s to break away from conservative traditions and question authority. As well, the significance that the covers of the Beatles albums had on society was the ability to portray different transformations the group was enduring while at the same time breaking down social norms.

Posted by eisl0005 at 9:32 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

College students, clergy, and even veterans started to protest at universities and marching to government buildings to end the very unpopular Vietnam War has started. Musicians became activists as they wrote famous songs to help aid the anti-war movement. These songs, such as "Give Peace a Chance" written by John Lennon and "Revolution" which was written by The Beatles, would only motivate the protesters and begin to influence many to help with the cause. In the article, “War Music and the American Composer during the Vietnam Era,� written by Ben Arnold, discusses how artists of the sixties were expressing their opinions in their lyrics. Music has always closely followed the epics of wars. Whether it was to give support to our soldiers fighting for a good cause or to blast the war authorities of its decision and lack of consideration of the troubles it will bring in the long run. In the World War II era, music composers worked to help bring patriotism amongst the nation using optimism. Creating songs to back the war and the government was very common. "World War II was the last major war to be waged without wide-scale American protest." We have witnessed in class, that films being made were to show how grateful we are for our country and that we will fight to protect it. This was the classic idea when Hollywood made Sahara; we see our allies fight as one for the good cause. Showing our country that we support this war was the main focus for movie makers and artists. It has all changed when America declared war with Vietnam. Arnold states, "The Vietnam conflict was a new-age war, a war with a culture of protest, and musical life reflected this change." Watching the horrors of the war on the news only intensified protester's anger towards this very unpopular war. Songs became more powerful was they introduced a new ways of having the horrid sounds in their songs, such as bombs exploding, screaming, and other sounds. The artists and composers needed this realism to show what kind of war we are in. This article is heavily related to the topics we covered in class and in the required reading. Artists protesting the war in their lyrics and inspiring their listeners to become an activist of war became very common in the Vietnam era. We have learned through the The U.S. vs John Lennon documentary how people came together for one cause, to promote peace within the world and end violence. Each artists had the same mission statement which would arise different opinions. Nevertheless, no artists back down on their beliefs on a world in which war was non existent.

Posted by Anthony Zerka at 9:32 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Ian Inglis wrties a short article in which he hopes to encompass album art as groundbreaking visual and aesthetic properties. His hopes are to be able to offer some observations to which may be applicable to an investigation of the dynamics of album art in general. He covers these grounds by introducing and discussing four main points. His first point is to address the basic role of album covers and that is to ensure the protection of the recording they contain. Secondly he argues that album covers are an advertisement for the recordings they contain. Thirdly album covers function as an accompaniment to the music. Finally he fosters the idea that the album sleeve can be seen as a commodity in its own right. In doing this Inglis focuses on 12 particular albums that were released from the Beatles. Also three assumptions about the covers are conveyed (85).

I first would like to say that I agree with this article and felt that iconography has a large part to do with the sales of LP’s, CD’s and other products. In this accord this article does present ideas about covers that I have never thought about and can see how this relates to other albums from different artists. The Beatles are portrayed as the ones who set the standard for other album covers and this makes complete sense. On that accord, the Beatles music and art not only had relevance in other bands but in fans as well. In the article entitled “Beatlemania�, fans increased their interest books of their good looks (Ehrenreich 525). All album covers had the pictures of the Beatles on them and well many placed them up as art in their rooms (Ian 84). Also the articles talks about the first song to be banned by the BBC- ‘A Day in the Life.� This can be directly related to the movie seen in class, “The US vs John Lennon.� This movie has many notions about being banned from certain areas, even from the United States.

Overall this article does contain a lot of interesting ideas about the art in album covers and even has significance in the lectures. In one of the weeks this semester, our instructor showed a series of Advertisements from Coca-Cola. These advertisements were imperative in the selling of coke products. This article shows that the selling of records was based on the advertisements that were on them. A direct link! Again, I agree with this article and think that it makes very good points of reference.

Posted by remy0004 at 9:18 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

John Bodnar’s main thesis in his article “Saving Private Ryan and Postwar Memory in America� argues that “the narrative of heroism, patriotism, and democracy that permeated wartime America—the story that Saving Private Ryan seeks to restore only partially—began to decompose immediately in the aftermath of World War II� (809).

Bodnar supports his position by discussing the direction Steven Spielberg took the film, and how in many ways Saving Private Ryan illustrated the ideals the American public perceived of its military-that the American soldier was known for his bravery, valor, morality, and honor. This is compared to the similar ideals that had been portrayed during the propaganda films such as Sahara that were censored by the OWI. This was to ensure that the American public would be reminded that WWII was a "people's war" and that democracy meant freedom.

In the aftermath of WWII, as America transitioned into it's role as a superpower, film began it's transition also. Bodnar points out that the role of film noir is similar to the victimization of the American soldier. The aftermath of war left both the country and soldier traumatized and fearful of further war. As Bodnar states, "nostalgia and mourning coexist" (811), meaning that Saving Private Ryan confronts the brutality of war, but spends the majority of its time showing the tension created by the pursuit of a lone man. In many ways this represents the conflict with how the country felt about war after WWII, and as a result very few combat films were made between 1946 and 1949 (811).

Bodnar continues to contrast the American public's perception of totalitarianism to individualism as he discusses the film The Sands of Iwo Jima that basically attacked the military perspective. While the American fighting machine was well equipped with the hardware to defeat the enemy, the desire of the fighting men to come home was greater and reconnect with their families was as great, if not greater. Again the trauma and turmoil of war is reflected in these postwar films, and that while the soldier can be perceived as barbaric he is ultimately still human.

This article provides an excellent timeline for many of the topics we discussed in class. One example is the reference to the OWI in it's censorship of propaganda films (Sahara) in the mid 1940's and how it helped shape America's conservative American culture. The transition in history and film from this conservative idea to a culture that was willing to engage itself against the government is evident as well, much like John Lennon did. One film we watched in class, Dr. Strangelove, really embodies the cultural shift from conservatism to liberalism with the mocking and questioning of it's leaders. Another film that shares a striking similarity to Saving Private Ryan and the way postwar film protrays the American soldier after WWII is Apolcalypse Now. Both films feature a rouge military commander leading his troops on a solitary mission, irrelevant to the outcome of the war, yet show us how brutal war can be.

As a result, the individual thinker in today's society can ask "why do we fight?"

Posted by char0018 at 8:38 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

STAGES OF FILM NOIR.
By Tom Conley

"Film Noir" has been the term used to describe a path through which film proders used during the 40's. Being that late 40s was a recent post-war time, there wasn't a better time that would set the stage for how films would be shot and cut.

The main acpects of film noir were particularly the lighting, proper body gestures, and especially the taboo that women weren't allowed to show bare skin beyond the body extremities. Such codes of producing films were respected by film producers, and thus they set the stage for what we would now regard as a genre of its own.

Tom Conley adequately made it clear that such genre was because of the times. It is also very understandable that due to the high standards and anxiety for the "reds" or enemies particularly after WWII would cause a major movement toward using Hollywood scenes as a medium to portray United Sates and its culture as being pure.

This in turn means that they had to enforce the bare skin taboo, and everything else that needed to be shown on the screen had to be exaggerated in order to make the pint clear.

Just like movies of today show the sign of the time and present culture, film noir is a two word explanation of what a 40s movies represented.

Posted by onon0006 at 8:30 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

As I read the article I found that the main theory the Ehrenriech explains is that Rock n' Roll was the most potent thing to enter the teenage life-especially in the girls who have mothers that grew up in the "housewife" era-because it changed the life of girls into a sexual revolution. This theory is displayed through the article when it starts out with a synopsis of the history of The Beatles. It tells us that 73 million Americans watched the Ed Sullivan show and how the scream got so obnoxiously loud that The Beatles became a complete studio band and no more shows were to be played. While bringing how popular the Beatles were to the table they are comparing how the swoons over Sinatra were different, but then it goes into how there was a Beatles Anonymous group being formed to try and get over them.

Later in the article it explains that before Rock n' Roll how pure the women were. How they didn't know where to draw the line, but then found the it was laid before sexual intercourse and that virginity was the most powerful gift you could give to your husband. They could kiss, neck and pet, but no further. This is where it got tricky when Rock n' Roll set in. This was a period of time where the teen markets was instinctively in growth through clothes, magazines, entertainment, etc. This was partially the advertisers and marketing people that are at fault for this growth, because they are aware of how vulnerable teenagers are at this time. This gave marketers a reason to use the Beatles in such a way that created mass hysteria of them arriving in America, which then created them to manipulate their own unique culture away from purity.

To me this article is a great summary of events that COULD have created the very unwanted sexual revolution, but no matter how hard a society presses against it...it's going to happen. Look at today we find that some teens are having sexual intercourse at the age of 10 and then becoming pregnant around 12 years old. The world is changing and creating a new way to live everyday. It's just the matter of whether you accept it or deny it and look over it. As soon as we can all accept it we may be able to change it. I surely don't agree with 10-12 yr olds having sex, but no matter how hard a parent tries they are going to rebel anyways. So why doesn't a parent teach them better ways about protecting themselves against pregnancy. I'm not fighting for this sexual revolution today, but it's happening and we need to realize it.

Posted by carr0445 at 7:50 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In Lott's article "The Whiteness of Film Noir" the play of light and shadow in film noir and how this shades the white man's soul with racial undertones is examined. Lott argues that the "blackening" that takes place of the white protagonists within film noir has a racial undertone to it. Previously, this decent to "darkness" was seen as a metaphor for the decay of society and the moral degeneracy of the character. Often the character is forced to choose between good/light, and evil/dark. This darkness is frequently personified as a woman, as seen in Double Indemnity, which the man must reject. What Lott puts forth is that this moral blackness also has a literal component. The darkness which the character embraces is a direct allusion to non-Caucasians. By becoming "black" the character is not just losing its moral decency, but adopting those indecent and criminal components that characterize the African American in American conciousness of the time.

Posted by drey0022 at 7:40 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The article I read was titled Saving Private Ryan and Postwar Memory in America. It was written by John Bodnar and made very interesting connections between what happened in World War II and how those effects were scene at home and in war movies. One of the author’s main points was that films were one of the only ways that real wartime emotions were scene. This is true because the government put all kinds of rules and regulations on things after the war, but films like Saving Private Ryan showed how difficult wartime was, and how strong the men were who came home after it.

Many of the men returned with psychological problems, and in previous times it was thought that the men who broke down after a traumatic event were not manly. It was shown in his article that the way we get over a severe trauma is by forgetting about it and moving on, and then later it will come back to us. This is a very interesting aspect about post war America. As soon as the war ended things seemed to be great there were no real regrets and people were just pleased to be home and to have won. We begin to see later on, after a few years, what a devastating effect all the killing had on the men.

The author also talks about how the scenes in the film had an effect on the public. One thing he mentions is the design of the military cemetery. It is filled with rows and rows of white gravestones which when seen remind us of the tremendous amount of people who gave their lives for the country. Another scene he mentions is the famous opening scene on the beach. It gave hints of how bloodthirsty humans are, and that wartime is cruel. I’m not sure this is what the OWI had in mind when they put restrictions on film making but the overall message of the film was bravery of the soldiers and success of the American troops.

Posted by elmxx014 at 7:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In "Beatlemania: A sexually defiant consumer subculture?" Barbara Ehrenreich, Elizabeth Hess, and Gloria Jacobs attempt to explain why the reaction to the Beatles was intense. Ehrenreich, et al, suggest that it was more than just the music that got these girls fired up, it was also a way for them to break free of oppressive gender roles. Girls were expected to be sexy without having sex in order to someday get a man to marry them. There were many rules they were told to follow and, according to these rules, the outcome if they did not strictly adhere to the rules would be catastrophic or at least extremely unpleasant. So dutifully these girls went to high school knowing this was the high point of their lives for once they got married they were essentially taken out of the public sphere and bound to the house. Enhrenreich argues that the Beatles helped these girls break free of their passive roles, lay claim to sexual feeling, and, the way that sports did for boys, helped the girls get some sexual release. It also didn't hurt that the Beatles themselves were somewhat androgynous: they had long hair and other feminine qualities that appealed to girls who were both a little afraid of sex and who were trying to break free of the gender roles as the Beatles had. The bottom line, though, was that the girls envied the Beatles: they were free to be sexual, strong, and do what they liked.

Ehrenreich, et al's argument is compelling and well-supported but it does not answer a very simple and crucial question: why now? What was going on at the time that made these girls suddenly decide that breaking free of gender roles was something they wanted to do? Enrenreich does, again, mention the fact that the Beatles are androgynous which goes along with breaking gender roles, but why at that particular point in time? From lectures we know the Beatles hit America at precisely the right time—things were going well in America economically yet socially and politically the nation was in turmoil. The Civil Rights movement was underway and JFK had just been shot: the country was in mourning and two months later the Beatles showed up. While it seems true that girls reacted so strongly to the Beatles because of their desire to break from gender roles, there must have been more of an impetus than just that. It seems likely that the girls were also using the Beatles as a distraction from their sadness. Furthermore, they were probably using their music as escape from their predictable life paths: as the Beatles were different in terms of personality and appearance than the crew-cut guys they were destined to marry and by laying claim to sexual feelings for them was another way to reject their futures.

Ehrenreich and company’s article is a good one with solid evidence and support for the argument, but it also ignores the larger world the girls lived in. By isolating Beatlemania to just an interaction between the girls and the Beatles leaves a lot of unanswered questions still about why Beatlemania was so intense.

Posted by bergm150 at 5:03 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Many of the themes that John Bodnar articulates are politically controversial. I have never been interested in politics; however, I do agree with Bodnar’s views on the American politics of war. In particular, Bodnar focuses on the film directed by Steven Spielberg – Saving Private Ryan. The general theme of Bodnar’s article is that the typical American narrative of heroism, patriotism, and democracy that infused wartime America began to fall apart in the aftermath of WWII. Bodnar explains these “honorable and moral� virtues were based on an illusion that the American government wanted to feed American citizens.

At the time, in an effort to ease the anxieties of the American people about wartime events, the government made promises in an attempt to empower the American people. Bodnar explains, the “Forties’ call to patriotic sacrifice were contingent on assurances of a more democratic society and world…Franklin D. Roosevelt took pains to make democratic promises in pronouncements like ‘The Four Freedoms’� (Bodnar, 806). At the same time, the Office of War Information was enforcing Hollywood producers to make films that both “helped win the conflict,� and reminded “audiences that it was a “people’s war,� which would bring about a future with more social justice and individual freedom� (Bodnar, 806). The OWI was basically telling Hollywood to make films that depict the typical pro-US government and military as the heroes and champions of war.

Bodnar states as a central point to his argument that after 1945, ordinary Americans realized war’s incredible state of brutality, which caused people to associate the cruelty of warfare with other forms of malice in their lives and in society. More importantly, once war exposed how barbarous men could be, it did not take much to see that people became fearful of warlike behavior. Fellow citizens began realizing that perhaps the faithful and honorable American family-man was not inherently patriotic and loving, but was in fact “domineering and ruthless� (Bodnar, 809). This recognized the evil that lies in the hearts and souls of “the people,� which goes against the hope of a more democratic and prosperous future for America. As Bodnar states, “Once it was demonstrated that violence could be homegrown and did not reside only in the visions of dictators, it followed that America itself could produce victims as well as patriots, treachery as well as loyalty� (Bodnar, 809).

It was established decades ago that Americans held this point of view about warfare, so how is it then, that a film that was directed in the twentieth century (Saving Private Ryan) so gallantly displays the men of war? Bodnar’s view was that, while Spielberg’s film reveals the brutality of war, it ironically preserves the WWII image of American soldiers as innately averse to bloodshed and brutality. One of the most poignant points that Bodnar made was that Saving Private Ryan attempts to maintain the memory of patriotic sacrifice more than it desires to explore the cause of the trauma and violence. He further states that this film is more concerned with restoring the romanticism of heroism than it is with ending the problem of devastating wars.

In closing, the politics of warfare are sometimes hidden and difficult to dissect. However, Bodnar made it clear that the failure of Saving Private Ryan to evoke the memory of “a people’s war� reveals the film’s conservative politics. Bodnar closes with the view that the “past, present, and future are now contingent on standards of individual behavior rather than on democratic ideals such as a quest for equality, a just capitalism, or citizen participation in political life� (Bodnar, 817). In other words, America’s future is best portrayed by the honorable individuals, rather than by democratic reforms. This view is still present in American government today.

-Hasti Fashandi

Posted by fash0016 at 4:50 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This was my favorite of all the articles so far because it brought to light something I was largely unaware of: the antiwar message and activism of orchestral composers. When one thinks of Vietnam era anti-war music what often comes to mind first are folk-artists such as Bob Dylan, Dave Van Ronk, Joan Baez, Pete Seeger, Ritchie Havens, Crosby, Stills Nash & Young et cetera. But what is often overlooked are how Classical style composers used their art form to criticize American foreign policy in addition to more commercial music. I thought that this sort of activism was reserved to more recently emergent genres of music. I was surprised to learn that there is a great body of work done in the Vietnam war era by these composers.

Some composers wrote anti-war pieces even during the course of World war two, to which they paid a price in popularity and public regard . Mostly though, music was supportive of the war effort, some commissioned by the governement, some not. The great increase in anti-war activism among American composers would come as the Vietnam war slowly began to fall out of favor with the American public at large. Ben Arnold, the writer of this article notes over sixty works by major composers with an Anti-war theme. These pieces would take radically different forms. The first type would be very strange "art music"., music with a very experimental core this including songs with mixed sound effects including sounds of war machines and explosions. Others would write and capture the sound and essence of traditional hymns and classical music.

The overall message was to expose both the intrinsic horrors of war and in addition to the specific problems with America's role in Vietnam.

Posted by gonza275 at 4:44 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)