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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The article, Music and the Anti-War Movement, by James Perone chronicles the music of the Vietnam War era. Perone, begins, by dissecting the first of the anti-war music which was mainly focused on an abstract view of war and the constant threat of nuclear annihilation. He discussed a lot of Bob Dylan’s songs including “Blowin’ in the Wind� and the song “Where Have All the Flowers Gone� by Pete Seeger. Perone said of Dylan’s song that he brought an “ . . . anti-war, anti-discrimination, anti-apathy message to millions (p. 36).

As the years of progressed and the country became more opposed to the war in Vietnam, the songs reflected the sentiments. Songs became stronger and more accusatory. Left-leaning protest singers tried to sway the government not only through their songs, but also through letters. For example, Joan Baez sent a letter that told the government she would not pay sixty percent of her income tax because she did not want it to go towards military funding.

Oddly, songs that were gentler were able to make an impact as well. Songs such as John Lennon’s “Give Peace a Chance� and Cat Stevens’s “Peace Train� reflected the “ . . . extent to which objection to Vietnam had become part of general American popular culture� (p.57). It is interesting to look at the changes that took place in lyrics and sounds as the war progressed and American sentiment towards the war changed.

Music was especially crucial in 1970 after the Kent State protests and killings. Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young wrote an extremely memorable song followings these events called, “Ohio.� The song was about tin soldiers that represented the National Guard and also placed the blame on President Nixon for the killing of four innocent college kids. Perone wrote that, “his lyrics suggest, in a veiled manner, that the events should serve to galvanize the movement against the prevailing power structure, while simultaneously acknowledging that the situation in America has evolved to the point that the soldiers are now being used against citizenry� (p.62).

This era in history stands apart from all others because of the sheer number of anti-war songs produced. As Perone chronicled the changes in music during this era, the reader is able to understand how music affected citizens and at the same time accurately represented historical events.

Posted by swens389 at 9:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (1) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Hip-Hop panel discussion began with the clarification of hip–hop and rap. According to Harmanci, “the study of hip-hop is contentious -- the definition of what hip-hop is, for instance, never fails to provoke passionate debate.� However, Professor Pates provided some illumination to the definition of hip-hop. He said that hip-hop is more of a culture and rap is the literature of the hip-hop culture. Unfortunately, the public often experiences ‘bad rap’ seen through the mass media. There is no attention paid to what is being said or the messages portrayed in the words.

Pates compared the rap music that is presented to the public to the popular author, Stephen King. Stephen King is known for books that are easy to read, but are not great quality and contain no real morals. This is the same as the music played on KDWB and B96. In order to comprehend the real meaning of hip-hop, one must dig deeper and listen to artists that have something to say such as Talib Kweli or Lupe Fiasco. These artists truly portray the meaning of hip-hop.

Posted by swens389 at 8:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

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