‘Do the Right Thing’ Discussion: Racist or About Racism? (1 Viewer)

[Jun-Dai Bates]

I'll just have to say that I simply disagree that these are held by most people or that I hold them.

I never said that you held them (though you might say that I was fishing), or even that the majority held them. My point was more along the lines that these are all commonly held, and that they are all indicative of racial prejudice.

Racial bias is not a simple concept, and there aren't any simple examples of racial bias held by the majority of the country. I argue that opposing affirmative action is indicative of racial bias (this statement is not the same as "I argue that those who oppose affirmative action are racially biased"), as is opposing a reform of the death penalty for most states and opposing the right to vote for convicted felons. These are examples, but they are by no means simple or concrete, and they are hotly debated.

If you want me to provide you with a racial bias that you yourself hold, then you are pretty much asking me to get this thread closed. The best I can do is fish for unlikely ones (like "many people believe (like Berlusconi) that people in the middle east are inherently violent and savage because Islamic culture is less developed or less enlightened than Western culture."), and even if I found one, it would likely get the thread closed anyhow. So that part of the conversation will probably have to stop here.

 

[Kevin M]

In my opinion, NO, it is never right to force someone to do things your way on a matter of personal philosophy (or in this case personal philosophy in the guise of restaurant wall decorations) so long as that personal philosophy doesn't hurt anyone.

That's truly is a cheap shot in light of the context of the film and discussion and I will not acknowledge such tactics as they are pointlessly inflammatory.

 

[Jun-Dai Bates]

Is it acceptable, no and I don't think it should ever be acceptable no matter what "social context" you wish to paint over it in order to justify what is basically wrong, irregardless of race.

At the moment (regarding Buggin' Out's boycott, etc.), I am not attempting to justify anything. I am simply pointing out that between Sal and the restaurant owner I used in my example, there is no real similarity between the situations, except fundamental aspects in which they mirror each other. Because the social contexts are completely different, the consequences, perception, and ethical considerations are also different.

 

[Jun-Dai Bates]

it is not correct for anyone to pressure anyone else as to what they can do on their own property or business or indeed their own lives

This is the statement I took issue with. In the context from which I took it is was unqualified. Under this statement the scenario for pressuring Sal that I provided would be considered wrong/immoral. I used the scenario because it was (hopefully) obvious. I am recommending that you modify the blanket statement because I think it is full of holes, and therefore invalid for use in making any judgements.

As for referring to it as being a very American perspective, I was specifically thinking of the phrase "This is America, I can do what I want" (and variations of this phrase), which has been used to defend the freedom of speech, but also to condone aggression and antagonism.

 

[Jun-Dai Bates]

so long as that personal philosophy doesn't hurt anyone.

This also is a simple statement that blankets very complicated ideas. It needs clarification. Do racial epithets hurt people? Do pictures of lynchings hurt people? Does the glorification of a person famous for their racial bigotry hurt anyone? What is it to hurt someone?

 

[Kevin M]

Jun-Dai, You are essentially rationalizing forced acceptance based upon who is on top of the social ladder and who is on bottom, I am saying that this sort of thinking is never correct.

This thread was doing so well.....

 

[Jun-Dai Bates]

Jun-Dai, You are essentially rationalizing forced acceptance based upon who is on top of the social ladder and who is on bottom, I am saying that this sort of thinking is never correct.

At what point was I rationalizing this?

 

[Mark Palermo]

I agree with Kevin. The issue of Sal putting photographs of black people on his wall of fame is the one aspect of DO THE RIGHT THING I've never been able to reconcile. It's interesting to hear that Lee's commentary track says that Sal shouldn't be required to buckle under pressure, as the film itself left me with an opposite impression. Still, this remains Lee's most powerful work (along with the woefully overlooked BAMBOOZLED), and Sal is a three-dimensional character, which is more than can be said for the cartoon Guidos that populate JUNGLE FEVER and SUMMER OF SAM.

Mark

 

[Kevin M]

Do racial epithets hurt people? Do pictures of lynchings hurt people?

Jun-dai YOU introduced that into my example, I never said a single thing about putting up racist photos in anyone shop and you know this.

I won't be goaded into this off topic discussion Jun, that is an attempt to force a discussion that has nothing to do with this thread & is needlessly inflammatory.

As far as where you implied that the two events are not the same, read your post #85. The implication that I draw from this is that posing a basic question as to what would the feelings be if the tables were turned is not the same as there are mitigating circumstances, I disagree with this idea because we are still talking about racial indifference. Clouding the issue with semantics as you have done has only helped you avoid actually answer my question.
"If the tables were turned do you think the black (or Asian or Bosnian or..)owner would be equally wrong in denying the demand or justified in denying the demand?"

 

[Jun-Dai Bates]

it is not correct for anyone to pressure anyone else as to what they can do on their own property or business or indeed their own lives

is invalid (without major qualifications.

As for hurting people, I am merely pointing out that the word "hurt" needs clarification, because it is extremely vague.

 

[Eric Howell]

What is so difficult for many to accept is that an act of violence could be the right thing. It is important to note that we have been set up for this all along, with the Martin Luther King/Malcolm X pictures and messages. These views primarily delivered by Smiley, who classically represents ‘truth’ or ‘purity’.

In my vigor last night to say that the film doesn’t present Mookie’s decision as the “right thing”, I neglected to point out that it also does not present Mookie’s actions as the wrong thing either. The movie is not giving the viewers answers, it is making them think about the issues(successfully from the looks of this thread). Perhaps the closing quotations of Malcolm and Martin are meant to show how hard it is to always know what the “right thing” is by showing two respected black leaders with opposing viewpoints on the use of violence as a means of obtaining racial equality. Maybe the conundrum is that there is not always a “right thing”.

 

[Kevin M]

Nor am I trying to be inflammatory.

Jun, you introduced the aspect of racially offensive photos into a discussion where none were and trying to force what was a simple example into territory where it was clearly never intended to go, if that isn't inflammatory and "stacking the deck" I don't know what is.

It seems you wish me to spell it out so..
It is never correct to force any person into conforming to your own personal philosophy's bearing in mind self evident exceptions such as racially offensive material and physically violent content such as human sacrifice and general bodily harm. But since this was never included in the topic of the thread or film to begin with I do not assume it is necessary to offer ponderous explanation.

...clearly I was wrong in that assumption.


If I am offended at all it is because it you seemed to be attempting to steer and control this discussion into a direction that you wanted it to go in by introducing elements that were clearly never originally intended and as I think it is irrelevant to the discussion that we were engaging in I will not follow you in that direction, Jun.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Do I have to close this thread because a couple of you can't discuss this film without getting personal and hot under the collar? If you can't control the parameters of your argument as it pertains to the film in question then you should stop participating in this thread so other members can continue to discuss this film without any moderators interceding in this thread by closing it in order to maintain the peace around here.




Crawdaddy

 

[John^Lal]

i think this thread needs to be closed, because personal feelings...strong personal feelings is all racism as a topic will evoke from anyone.

 

[Kevin M]

No, DON'T close the thread. The others deserve to continue this.

 

[Reginald Trent]

I disagree that this should be closed because of something that MIGHT be said. However, that's one of the problems in using or being forced to use ahistoric scenarios to discuss a film based in historic context. It's sorta like discussing Schindler's List but not mentioning the role Nazis played in the movie.

Moreover, why do some of us want only to focus on Mookie throwing the trash basket as the wrong thing, but no mention of the cops murdering Radio Raheem or Sal not caring about his customers? Sure, Sal owned the pizzaria but the store belongs to the neigborhood that supports it, pure and simple. Without their support Sal would not have income to maintain a "Wall Of Italian American Heroes".

A smart/successful person/business always listens to and tries to accomodate its customers. We've all heard the term "The Customer's Always Right".

Sal ran a business and you cannot separate the feelings of customers regarding commerce in a capitalistic society.

Like others I also believe Spike made this movie to spark discussion on the various subjects portrayed in the film.

Furthermore, a argument could be made that the film is "controversial" only to those not familar with the settings displayed in the movie.

 

[Todd Terwilliger]

Re: Sal, the photos, etc.

I think the whole point is not that Sal must, or Buggin' Out must but that they could...

I don't think anyone would say that Buggin' Out has no right to boycott Sal's restaurant just as no one would say that Sal has no right to put whichever pictures he pleases on his wall.

The point is that neither Sal nor Buggin' Out take the time to consider each other's positions - they both immediately become inflammatory, raising the pressure.

I think that relations of all kinds are based on compromise and if no one is willing to compromise then people, in this case Radio Raheem, Sal (through his restaurant) get hurt.

 

[Jun-Dai Bates]

I was not trying to be inflammatory. Nor do I feel I was trying to stack the deck. Without really pursuing the topic further, I would like to explain what my point was and what I was trying to do.

I get the sense that people who feel that the film was racist, or that Mookie's actions were without justification (not that they were right, but that there was reason for them. Nothing in the real world is so simple as to be right or wrong. Right and wrong compose a spectrum, and that spectrum is derived from other spectra) have been attempting to simplify the moral issues that are at hand.

Even the statement that Kevin spelled out needs spelling out. The principle that he's getting at isn't even close to that simple. Using a simple moral rule (e.g. stealing is bad) and admitting that it has a large area of exception and requires qualifications, and then not delineating those areas of exception and the qualifications defeats the point of using the simple rule.

I haven't had any intention of offending anyone. Nor have I been trying to steer the conversation so much as demanding clarification for points that I see as overly simplistic and refuting points that are relevant to the film.

I have not made any statements for the sake of being inflammatory. The reason that I mentioned racial epithets and imagery of lynchings comes from two things: 1. it continued a train of thought that george started. 2. it had to be a premise that we would agree on, which it seems we do (though that got lost in the shuffle somehow).

As for this comment that I made:

The fact that this film is controversial indicates to me that we have a long way to go.

It is important to my point. It means that our difficulty on settling on what is racism within the film and whether the film is racist itself reveals that the daunting task of dealing with what is racism in our society--also whether our society itself is racist, and whether everyone in our society is racist to some degree--has a long, long way to go towards being resolved (much less resolving the issues of what to do about racism).

 

[Jun-Dai Bates]

i think this thread needs to be closed, because personal feelings...strong personal feelings is all racism as a topic will evoke from anyone.

Racism as a topic may provoke strong feelings, but it is entirely relevant to the film (indeed I might ask whether the film has any relevance without the topic), and what's more, not talking about racism is much worse than the strong feelings that the topic evokes. If all that is in danger is some personal feelings (and so far I don't think they're that much in danger--Kevin seems more annoyed about my means of discussion than he is offended about anything), then let the discussion continue. Of course if there are other considerations such as lawsuits and reputation, then they must be considered before allowing the thread to continue--but I don't see any danger of this so far.

 

[Michael Allred]

Regardless of the stupidity of wanting an Italian to put pictures up of black heroes in his own restaurant, wouldn't the logical way to go be: "You know, I don't like the owner of this place. I will take my money elsewhere."

I'm a huge fan of the band Queen. I go into a record store and strike up a conversation with the owner. I see he has posters of various "legendary" bands on the walls and aak why there isn't one of Queen. Not only does he say he hates the band but refuses to listen to their music becaus the lead singer was a "fag."

Would his opinion offend me (not the fact he dilikes the band but because of the biggoted remark)? Yes. Would I do what some of the black characters in DTRT did? Absolutely not. I take my business elsewhere.

I enjoyed DTRT but you wanna know what my biggest problem with it was? Spike Lee insisting on acting in it. He's awful, as he's been in every other part he's played. Why do directors insist on casting themselves in their movies? Same goes for Quentin Tarantino. Great writer/director, god awful actor.