*Note: I know this movie is extremely graphic, but it is the first movie that entered my mind when I thought of movies pertaining to Social Justice, and I absolutely could not resist writing about it. I hope that's okay.
American History X is a story about a former white supremacist, Derek Vinyard, who changes his way of life after a harrowing experience in prison following two murders he committed, and his subsequent attempts to save his brother from following in his footsteps.
Oh boy, where to start, where to start! This movie is just begging for commentary from a Social Justice student. . . so let's start into this.
The first point I can raise up also happens to be the earliest chronological one in the movie, too: Derek and Danny's upbringing. Their father, firefighter Dennis Vinyard, is seen as an integral part of their belief in white supremacy; his constant comments to Derek over their dinner signify that Derek has not been raised in a manner of seeing others equally. In fact, it's quite the opposite; he believes that minorities are below him, and that he is above them via his skin colour. This idea is only further emphasized when his father is shot, and killed, while fighting a fire in a suspected drug den in Compton.
While the boys may have been raised in a middle-class home, and received a fair upbringing in regards to their status' in life, they are lacking in areas of access extremely. They do not accept people of other ethnicity, do not view their ideas in the same light, and it would be safe to say that they don't even really treat them like people.
However, as the movie continues, and we are introduced to the prison life that Derek has endured (although in the movie, the events are nonlinear), we see that he begins to change his character. He is remorseful for his actions, because, as it turns out, the very people he joins with in prison - the Aryan Brotherhood, a white supremacist gang - are the ones who end up hurting him the most, and a black inmate named Lamont turns out to be his biggest saviour and best friend, despite his obvious Neo-Nazi tendencies. This friendship really is a turning point for Derek, and, as time passes, he begins to change his ways, and is much more accepting to other races.
When he is released, he realized a grave mistake he has made; he has shown his brother, Danny, a way of violence and hatred, one he has been all too eager to follow. Derek attempts to right this wrong, and bring Danny out of the Neo-Nazi movement. He goes with him to a meeting, only to tell their "ringleader", Cameron, to stay away from Danny. While Cameron is incredulous that Derek would want to leave, even denying the idea outright, he informs Derek that he [Danny] will "come to him [Cameron] rather than you [Derek], because I'm like his father now," Derek responds by beating him unconscious. While this is a somewhat controversial claim, I think that this is the only way Derek could have made his point clear.
After the ensuing confrontations, Derek tells Danny about his entire time in prison, and why the road he is walking down is an absolutely wrong one. After hearing about his brothers brutal treatment in prison, and his subsequent rescue by a black inmate, Danny begins to have a change of heart about the activities he is involved in. This is symbolically portrayed when the two go home, and rip down all of their Neo-Nazi paraphernalia from their walls.
It is interesting to note that, while Derek is a Neo-Nazi, he treats his black English teacher, Mr. Sweeney, with a very high level of respect. While this occurs before he truly enters into his realm of Neo-Nazism, it nonetheless does show that Derek has some form of understanding and respect to people of other races.
I won't spoil the ending of the movie; however, let it be known that it is an extremely sad conclusion, and one that shows just how meaningless and dangerous racism can be. It's unfortunate that Derek and Danny have to learn this in such a hard way, but it really does push the point of the movie home.
All in all, American History X is an amazing portrayal of how racism is not a solution to any problems. While the movie can be extremely graphic, and the tone of the movie is depressing, I would recommend anybody that thinks they can handle it to watch it as soon as possible.
Monday 23 January 2012
Monday 9 January 2012
Sexualization Versus Desexualization
Women are no strangers to sexualization. With over 50% of advertisements on television aimed at women, and with most of those containing a view of women in a sexualized way ("beauty products", for instance, seem to enjoy highlighting either classy-looking women, or women with low-cut shirts), it's no wonder that so many women have self-esteem issues in this day and age. How could somebody hold up a positive opinion of themselves, when they're being constantly bombarded from so many angles with messages like, "Buy this, and you'll be beautiful!", or "He won't like you until you wear THIS!", or "Men only like women who wear low-cut shirts, so you'd better go get some!"
To follow this example to an extreme, with the rise of the Internet, another facet where women will see an overtly sexualized view of their gender is in pornography. With roughly 13% of ALL search engine searches between the June 2010 and June 2011 being related to erotic content, and earning more than $4 billion per year, porn is certainly on the minds of many people. And it's easy to see where this creates problems with the sexualization of women; seeing a women in a purely sexual manner serves to simply object her into that roll. If one is watching porn, it certainly isn't in support of women's rights. I actually know of a few girls that have stated they'd rather not bother with post-secondary education, and simply become pornographic stars, because "why bother spending money, when I can go into an industry that has no real qualifications, aside from my looks?" If this sort of message exists in today's society, we must seriously re-examine how we are enabling these types of mindsets.
But, in stark contrast to this, there is also an emergent sector of girls/women who are desexualizing themselves, especially in facets to appearance. More and more, there is a rise of girls dressing in a more masculine way; cutting their hair short, perhaps even shaving their heads, wearing clothing that is more traditionally perceived as male, or in more extreme cases, taping their breasts down under their shirts, to eliminate the viewpoint of them as solely feminine creatures.
Why? Because of the history women have had. Most have been viewed as caretakers of houses, "baby-makers", eye-candy, and. . . well, for the majority of women, not much else (at least in the past). While a lot of that has been alleviated, there is certainly still some stigmas around that apply to women, and I wouldn't blame a women wanting to eliminate the idea that she is where she is because of her gender, or that her gender defines her as a whole person.
As we head forward, we need to cautiously examine what sort of messages are being sent to young girls, especially in regards to how they are portrayed sexually. Advertising, in particular, needs to re-define how to reach both sexes without falling into stereotypes for either of them. We're in a post-everything society, and we need to start redefining old ideas quickly, before we fall back into the same pitfalls from before.
To follow this example to an extreme, with the rise of the Internet, another facet where women will see an overtly sexualized view of their gender is in pornography. With roughly 13% of ALL search engine searches between the June 2010 and June 2011 being related to erotic content, and earning more than $4 billion per year, porn is certainly on the minds of many people. And it's easy to see where this creates problems with the sexualization of women; seeing a women in a purely sexual manner serves to simply object her into that roll. If one is watching porn, it certainly isn't in support of women's rights. I actually know of a few girls that have stated they'd rather not bother with post-secondary education, and simply become pornographic stars, because "why bother spending money, when I can go into an industry that has no real qualifications, aside from my looks?" If this sort of message exists in today's society, we must seriously re-examine how we are enabling these types of mindsets.
But, in stark contrast to this, there is also an emergent sector of girls/women who are desexualizing themselves, especially in facets to appearance. More and more, there is a rise of girls dressing in a more masculine way; cutting their hair short, perhaps even shaving their heads, wearing clothing that is more traditionally perceived as male, or in more extreme cases, taping their breasts down under their shirts, to eliminate the viewpoint of them as solely feminine creatures.
Why? Because of the history women have had. Most have been viewed as caretakers of houses, "baby-makers", eye-candy, and. . . well, for the majority of women, not much else (at least in the past). While a lot of that has been alleviated, there is certainly still some stigmas around that apply to women, and I wouldn't blame a women wanting to eliminate the idea that she is where she is because of her gender, or that her gender defines her as a whole person.
As we head forward, we need to cautiously examine what sort of messages are being sent to young girls, especially in regards to how they are portrayed sexually. Advertising, in particular, needs to re-define how to reach both sexes without falling into stereotypes for either of them. We're in a post-everything society, and we need to start redefining old ideas quickly, before we fall back into the same pitfalls from before.
Friday 4 November 2011
Treat People Like People.
In Canada, most people seem to be under the guise that we aren't the kind of place where people are discriminated against, be it for gender identity, sexual identity, race, religion, or any number of things. Most people believe that these kind of things only occur in other places, most notably the U.S. The case of Jamie Hubley must have pulled quite a twist on that sort of logic (which I will hereafter refer to as "Laramie Logic"; the idea that bad things happen somewhere else, with different people, and not in our own communities).
How is it that things like this are still occurring? I wish I could say that we are past these kind of incidences; but I know, deep down, that we've only progressed in baby steps in this area. Where have we gone wrong; how could we have stumbled so much in regards to human rights, where something as important as a person's sexuality is ignored, and, if it isn't heterosexual, is viewed as weird, shunned, or, in a case such as Jamie Hubley, ridiculed, driving him to a point where he felt his only escape from something such as this is death?
While Hubley had suffered from depression, which put him at further risk of suicide (or suicidal tendencies), the underlying fact remains that, had these kids not harassed him, he would have certainly had a different set of options present for him. And why shouldn't he have had those options present from the beginning? Why should I even have to take about somebody two years younger than me taking his life, because of the simple fact that he was attracted to men? It's disturbing, baffling, and a slew of other words that I can't think of, or should most likely not be saying in a blog for school.
Anyways, back to the point I'm trying to make; we need a serious spokesperson to step up for this issue. Rick Mercer's rant about how "It Gets Better" needs to change to "It Is Better", and I fully agree. We need a spokesperson to both tell LGBT youth that they are okay the way they are, and to actively pursue ways to combat this issue. The more we ignore this issue, the more people are going to feel uncomfortable for something they can't control, and subsequently create an atmosphere that condones the idea that bullying is alright, which can lead to extreme ends, as seen in the Hubley case.
I think we should just treat people like people. Are you a person? I'd imagine that's the case. So, by that logic, treat other people like actual people, and everyone will have less crap to deal with.
How is it that things like this are still occurring? I wish I could say that we are past these kind of incidences; but I know, deep down, that we've only progressed in baby steps in this area. Where have we gone wrong; how could we have stumbled so much in regards to human rights, where something as important as a person's sexuality is ignored, and, if it isn't heterosexual, is viewed as weird, shunned, or, in a case such as Jamie Hubley, ridiculed, driving him to a point where he felt his only escape from something such as this is death?
While Hubley had suffered from depression, which put him at further risk of suicide (or suicidal tendencies), the underlying fact remains that, had these kids not harassed him, he would have certainly had a different set of options present for him. And why shouldn't he have had those options present from the beginning? Why should I even have to take about somebody two years younger than me taking his life, because of the simple fact that he was attracted to men? It's disturbing, baffling, and a slew of other words that I can't think of, or should most likely not be saying in a blog for school.
Anyways, back to the point I'm trying to make; we need a serious spokesperson to step up for this issue. Rick Mercer's rant about how "It Gets Better" needs to change to "It Is Better", and I fully agree. We need a spokesperson to both tell LGBT youth that they are okay the way they are, and to actively pursue ways to combat this issue. The more we ignore this issue, the more people are going to feel uncomfortable for something they can't control, and subsequently create an atmosphere that condones the idea that bullying is alright, which can lead to extreme ends, as seen in the Hubley case.
I think we should just treat people like people. Are you a person? I'd imagine that's the case. So, by that logic, treat other people like actual people, and everyone will have less crap to deal with.
Tuesday 13 September 2011
Hardships of an Indian
The hardships the main character are both by-products from birth, and from the situation he find himself in on the reservation.
He has cerebral spine fluid on his brain, which made his brain as though it was "clogged up with grease". This makes him susceptible to seizures and birth defects, such as extra teeth, extreme foot growth, being abnormally skinny, and having an extremely large head.
He also lives on the reservation, and finds himself a statistic of the poverty that affects his people. For instance, in the first part chapter of the book, his dog, Oscar, becomes sick, and his parents say they can't afford to have him go to the vet, and instead, his father ends up shooting Oscar. The main character remarks, "a bullet only costs two cents. Anybody can afford a bullet."
He has cerebral spine fluid on his brain, which made his brain as though it was "clogged up with grease". This makes him susceptible to seizures and birth defects, such as extra teeth, extreme foot growth, being abnormally skinny, and having an extremely large head.
He also lives on the reservation, and finds himself a statistic of the poverty that affects his people. For instance, in the first part chapter of the book, his dog, Oscar, becomes sick, and his parents say they can't afford to have him go to the vet, and instead, his father ends up shooting Oscar. The main character remarks, "a bullet only costs two cents. Anybody can afford a bullet."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)