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

[Robert Crawford]

As Michael has stated, let's focus the discussion back on the film without personal references towards other members.




Crawdaddy

 

[Jun-Dai Bates]

When I look in the mirror and see my balding head, I don't like what I see, but I don't deny the reality of what I see. But if I were to look in the mirror and see that I was suddenly 9 feet tall, I would question the mirror, and indeed further investigation would show it to be a funhouse mirror, not one accurately reflecting reality.

It's a lot harder to draw these conclusions when the "mirror" in question is just a metaphor. "Mirror" is not a very good metaphor for describing what Spike Lee is creating, but it is apt in describing the effect that it might have on some people. Spike Lee's film is the most in-depth attempt I've seen at capturing different perspectives--different racial prejudices, different assumptions about other people and their racial prejudices. It might be interesting to draw a map of all the characters and the various in-group out-group relationships that they have.

As for racism, george, in your arguments you seem to be neglecting the fact that the people who claim that black racial aggression against white people cannot be appropriately labeled "racism" are using a different definition than you.

More importantly, you limit your understanding of yourself in thinking that these concepts are simple. Sure, if a bunch of black people hang a white person and cover their body with racial slurs (how many times has this happened?), it is a most heinous act of racial aggression, but the social statement is quite different from a bunch of white people hanging a black person and covering his body with racial slurs (again, how many times has this happened?). These events are not occurring in a vacuum. The people committing these acts know that the acts are treated differently in the media, in the courts, amongst the police, and in the perception of the TV-viewers. Their motivations are most likely quite different. In fact, the only thing that the two actions have in common are the physical aspects and the moral reprehensibility.

 

[Jun-Dai Bates]

It would be a shame to close this thread, but keep in mind that this kind of discussion is necessary if we really want to get at the heart of the film. The film is controversial, and it is impossible to make much of the film without touching on controversial issues. That being said, I hope that we can discuss this film without offending each other too much, or with the discussion not becoming too heated.

Unless things get really out of hand, I think that in a way it is more dangerous to shut the discussion down than it is to let it wander through different (but related) controversial topics.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Jun,
Stop with the personal references then the discussion should remain cool, if the personal references continue then chances of this discussion getting out of hand increases to such a point that moderator action is unavoidable.




Crawdaddy

 

[Lew Crippen]

As a side note, those of you who have a copy of the Criterion edition of this film, might like to take a look at some of the extras. Some of them are pretty insightful.

Although it’s been a while since I watched any of these, my view are:

·The Cannes Film Festival press conference with Spike and some of the cast is insightful, not necessarily for the answers, but rather for the questions asked and, especially some of the body language of the press (and Lee). At one point, IIRC, Rodger Ebert winds up biting his tongue. Oddly, Lee gets pressed as to why he ignores the ‘drug’ problem—strange as you would think that the press at Cannes would be knowledgeable enough to critique a film on its own merits. At least our discussion here has not gone into that kind of tangent.
·The ‘making of’ documentary has some interest, especially where we see how the cast wants to interrupt their characters. Note especially the differences between Danny Aiello’s vision of Sal and Spike’s (a couple of you have already commented on this). And how this gets resolved (or at least accommodated).
·I think that the commentary is pretty good, but I need to refresh my memory. Some of the things that I remember as being in the commentary, I may well have picked up elsewhere.
Not anything to do with the subject matter, but I love the fact that this DVD has a PCM track.

 

[Lew Crippen]

My thanks to Michael and Crawdaddy for helping us keep the discussion on track.

I really appreciate everyone’s comments, especially George’s, where I knew beforehand that he had a different view of this film than me. But as always, his view is backed by references and reasoning.

 

[ChuckDeLa]

George, if you contend that DTRT is racist because it presents most people as being prejudiced, and that you believe that to be false... then we will not ever see eye to eye on this. Most people ARE racially prejudiced in some way. It doesn't make them evil or racist. But most people make occasional sweeping generalizations about other groups of people, whether it be based on race, gender, age, nationality, income, clothing, musical preference, etc. To say you are free from any such biases is... well, frankly it's hard to believe. Again, it doesn't make you a bad person and it doesn't mean you hate blacks. Such things are inevitable, and the most important thing is to recognize when you're making an unfair and irrational pre-judgement and not to let it control your actions.

DTRT touches on this quite well, pinpointing how these prejudices are almost always lurking beneath the surface. Good people can have bad thoughts.

 

[Jun-Dai Bates]

I'm pretty sure that he did not mean "scientifically proven." Very little is "scientifically proven" (which is a peculiar expression in its own right) in the realm of cultural anthropology (this is even more true than in other soft sciences like psychology). This does not reflect the validity of the field in any way, but rather the complexities of all the ideas that the field encompasses.

 

[Kevin M]

At least our discussion here has not gone into that kind of tangent.

Wellllll...............
It's a shame (but not a surprise, in light of the strong feelings people have on the subject) that a discussion on this film's topics can't go for too long without people getting personal in their comments.

I don't think Mookie did the right thing, he encouraged violence in a heated situation. To say that he tried to focus the violence on a store rather than people is presumptuous because once a crowd is incited to destructive motives how can you control or predict what or who gets swept up in the wave? The situation he instigated could have easily caused the death of any of the Italian or Asian characters and this in my opinion is not the right thing to do...the talk they had on the stoop at the end was the right thing to do but Mookie and Sal are merely lucky that they could have this talk, had the events of the previous night went the way it probably would have in real life Mookie would be talking to the police about what the hell he was thinking when he started the riot and I don't think that his speech would have had much impact in light of the death it would have caused had things went differently.

IMO Mookie lucked out and that isn't "the right thing" to count on in light of the film's apparent aspirations.

 

[Jun-Dai Bates]

Generally speaking, everyone exhibits some kind of in-group favoritism, which ends up being a form of racial prejudice/bias. Let's say I need to employ someone, and I hire a friend, or someone recommended by a friend. Or lets say I interview with a number of applicants, and I pick someone with whom I hit it off well. This is all exhibiting a kind of in-group favoritism, and if I am white, then generally speaking my in-group favoritism will favor white people. My in-groups may cross color lines, but it is unlikely that that will happen with any regularity (insofar as it affects my day-to-day life). Some people are in a position where their in-groups cross color lines frequently, but these people are not common.

The fact that most of the people in positions of power in this country are white, and that the dominant culture of this country has most of its roots in Western Europe, allows for a situation where widespread in-group favoritism negatively affects black people, latinos, et al.

The idea that racism only comes about in this country when white people are racist towards minorities, however valid an idea it may or may not be, derives from the idea that when white people exhibit racial prejudice against black people (or racial favoritism towards white people) it reinforces the power structure, whereas when black people do likewise, it is an act of aggression against the power structure.

Now whether you agree with the people who posit that idea, it should at least give you pause. After all, if a black person passes over a qualified white person for a job, they are hardly reinforcing the power structure of this country and society. They may be doing something along the lines of that in a smaller scope (within a specific community or organization, for example), but that smaller scope is still within the larger and unignorable power structure of this country and society. Similarly, if a white person passes over a black person as a result of some sort of in-group favoritism with another white person (went to the same high school, listen to the same music, shop from the same clothing catalogue, etc. as some other candidate), it is most definitely reinforcing the power structure, because it is in-group favoritism within the dominant group. In-group favoritism is not really racism, but when you step back from an incident of it, and look at the picture that is created by people exhibiting in-group favoritism in a divided society like ours (where black people are underrepresented--as far as a random distribution is concerned--in positions of power, and white people are underrepresented--again, in comparison to a random distribution--amongst the unemployed, the impoverished, and the imprisoned).

Of course relations between minority groups are even more complicated.

 

[Joseph Young]

Jun-Dai,

Well stated.

I think it's absolutely imperative to acknowledge the social and political power structure in this country, its roots, origins, and inherent biases -- in order to accurately frame the racism that Lee is concerned with in his films. And more importantly, to make the important distinction between the enormously different symbolic subtext of racism perpetrated on a group with a social and political disadvantage, and a history of enslavement and oppression.

I want to recommend a film to all of you. It has a little bit of that Northern Californian 'Stuart Smalley' hokey new age vibe, but it's a very candid and powerful discussion of race and racism.

"The Color of Fear" by Producer/Director Lee Mun Wah.

Highly, highly recommended to everyone.

Joseph

edited to accurately pronounced Jun-Dai's name. sorry bout that, my stomach flu is making me really absent minded...

 

[george kaplan]

Just a few quick responses

I fully understand the idea. But I still disagree with the terminology. To define racism as only possible by the group in power is too limiting. It creates two classes of racists (those who really are racist because they're the color of the power group and those who aren't really racist but are just engaging in racially motivated violence against members of the race in power). It is in fact, an unusable definition in my opinion for the following reason.

How do you define a member of the race that has the power? Am I white if I'm part American Indian (even if I look white)? Can a white be a racist if he goes to Mexico and assaults a Mexican? (in Mexico, the whites are not in power). Does the fact that whites are in power at the national level mean that at every local level, whites represent power and other racial groups don't? I once went to a step show at Howard University where light-skinned blacks were using their 'power' in the fraternity system to engage in some biased activity against dark-skinned blacks. Is that racism?

As far as my definition of racism, well here's what the dictionary says:

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior.

2. A policy, system of government, etc. based on such a doctrine.

3. Hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

While definition 2 certainly pertains to a government in power, it is only in the context that a government can be racist as well as an individual. No where is there any mention in definitions 1 & 3 that you need to be part of a racial group in power to be racist.

I am aware of certain books that define racism differently, the way that it's being proposed by some here. But I think the dictionary definition is clearly the most common, and it's the one I will continue to use.

 

[Jun-Dai Bates]

I may very well have ones based on income or clothing or musical preference , but those are hardly racial biases.

That's the trick, you see. Your biases based on income, clothing, and/or musical preference are going to have racial correlations. This is, of course, not the same thing as having a racial bias, but if you string together the biases that a given person has, generally speaking, you will come up with an overlying racial bias (by which I mean a racial bias that a person does not necessarily have directly, but which they in effect have).

Let's take a simple example. Let's say I enjoy (and am biased towards people that enjoy) Johnny Cash, Michael Crichton, Nirvana, Jim Carrey, and J. Crew. Now, obviously there are black people that enjoy these things. Obviously there are white people that don't enjoy these things. The question is, is there a statistical racial correlation between those who like them and those that don't. I suspect there is (if you disagree, then we'll have to wrestle and start over again). Now, I have nothing against someone that prefers Wu-Tang Clan (let's say I don't like Wu-Tang Clan), but I'm less likely to connect with them than someone I can talk to about Nirvana. I don't have any clear racial biases, but in effect, one evolves out of the biases that I do have.

 

[george kaplan]

Sorry, but any biases I might have about music or income, etc. have nothing to do with race. And frankly I'm having a hard time thinking of any of those.

I'm still not clear on what you consider a bias. I'm confused. Just because you enjoy something doesn't mean that you have to be biased towards others who enjoy it or against those who don't. Bias would be a belief about those others, such as that people who like the same music as you are smarter and cleaner and more worthy people than those who don't. Just because people who share an interest with you tend not be a member of group X, doesn't mean you're biased against group X.

Let's say I enjoy a type of music and I go to a concert and everyone there is a little old lady. Does that make me biased towards little old ladies or against little old men? I don't see how.

Again, a racial bias is a belief that one racial group is superior in some sense based solely on their membership in that racial group. I can not think of any such bias I have, and I am still waiting for one concrete example of one of these commonly held racial biases that everyone apparently has.

And just to be clear, something that is factually true isn't bias. If I believe that, on average, men tend to be taller than women, that's not bias.

 

[Todd Terwilliger]

This discussion has swerved way beyond the film itself... but let me throw in my two cents

George,

Just because you believe you have no racial bias does not mean it is so. I'm not saying you do have bias, but we see, or don't see, many things about ourselves that aren't necessarily true.

Also, like I and others have said before, if you're principle dispute of the film is that most people do not have racial bias unlike what Lee represents, I simply cannot agree with that fundamental assertion. All of my mixed heritage experience and all of my minority friends' experience goes against it. At this point, you and I (and Mr. Lee) have very different world-views. I'm not sure there is anywhere to go from here since we obviously see two very different places.

 

[Eric Howell]

I completely disagree with those contending that the movie is trying to tell us that Mookie is doing the “right thing” by tossing the trash can into the store window. I think the final scene is purposefully set up to allow the viewer to make a choice similar to the one Mookie has to make. In Mookie’s case, he clearly sides with the group angry with Sal (blaming him, at least partially for Raheem’s death). I don’t understand how one can think the movie is portraying Mookie’s decision as the “right thing” when the film’s most sympathetic character Da Mayor actively tries to stop the looting before it takes place. Also, Mother Sister’s rage gets to her during the looting sequence, but she is clearly remorseful about it immediately afterwards(perhaps her reaction is most telling of all, since I’m betting a lot of viewers come away from this sequence disgusted with themselves like she was, or at least I did).



Edited to correct Mother Sister's initial reaction to the looting.

 

[Jun-Dai Bates]

George, I think your definition of bias is a little off. People tend to connect with those that they share things in common with. People also tend to favor those people that they can connect with. This is the basis of what I am talking about. Biases are not opinions (extrapolations) about people; it is simply a tendency to favor something.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Jun-Dai, you have some very interesting thoughts and observations.

Do you have any on the film? While I can’t speak for anyone else, I would be more interested in your observations as to how you see the film portraying racial attitudes and actions, than in a debate over definitions.

 

[Jun-Dai Bates]

heh.

Thanks for getting my name right, Lew.

As for the film. I need to see it again (saw it once about three years ago), but I do consider it one of the few rare great films from the 80s. Incidentally, it is the only Spike Lee film I've seen that I would consider great (having only seen Jungle Fever, Malcolm X, and Summer of Sam besides).

Whether Spike Lee's depiction of this neighborhood and its characters meshes with your view of the world, it should be clear--looking back on some of these posts--that it at least meshes with some people's view of the world, and that alone is significant.

I don't feel that Spike Lee's characterization of Italian Americans in this film is either kind or fair, but I do feel that it is appropriate. The film has a perspective, and Spike Lee knows it, and you know it, and Spike Lee knows you know it. What this means is that Spike Lee isn't pretending to portray an unbiased view of the world (there is no such thing as an unbiased view of the world; to have a view is to have a bias, yet it is a common approach for a narrative to try to present an unbiased, omniscient perspective), but that he is presenting the world from a perspective the he knows.

Regarding his portrayal of the Italian Americans (and Korean Americans): there is nothing particularly unrealistic about what these characters do, but that they do them in a manner approaching caricature, and that the characters are underdeveloped is what provides the unfair approach of 'perspective'. If Sal was more likeable than he is (which he surely is to some people--people whose perspectives we don't see), and he is by no means unlikeable, it would be more difficult to understand why the other characters treat him the way they do.

As for Radio Raheem, the situation is similar. He is portrayed so as to specifically bring out our pre-judgements of him. Radio Raheem is drawn from the African-American stereotype that is most likely to get under the white guys skin: the black man with the loud boom box. This is where the whole in-group out-group thing comes in. Spike Lee (I think) expects that a portion of his audience will feel some connection to Radio Raheem, find Sal's actions unacceptable, and find the community reaction to Radio Raheem's death understandable. Spike Lee also expects that a portion of his audience will share Sal's opinions of Radio Raheem's, and while deploring Radio Raheem's death, they will be more concerned with why Mookie threw that garbage can. Judging by people's reactions to the film here and elsewhere, it seems like Spike Lee has succeeded.

I doubt that Spike Lee expected people to become less racist as a result of watching the film, or that people will have an epiphany and suddenly come to understand Radio Raheem as a sympathetic character. More likely, he wanted to provoke discussion. The film is extremely well made: the cinematography is notable, the acting is notable, the heat is palpable, the tension is unbearable. Part of the film's success probably comes from these qualities, and hopefully that makes people who respect what he's doing with the medium more willing to go the distance and try to understand the film. Spike Lee doesn't want people to adopt his perspective so much as he wants people to become more flexible in their own perspectives.

Dealing with racism in modern times in this country is less about changing your perspective and eliminating your biases, and more about making yourself more open to other perspectives and overcoming your biases to give people the benefit of the doubt. High profile racism (lynchings, etc), while not a thing of the past, is largely behind us. The muck that lies ahead of us is much more complicated and much more difficult to work through, because it means finding ways to weed out the effects of the inherent racial prejudices that we all have, and that none of us believe we have. The fact that this film is controversial indicates to me that we have a long way to go.

 

[george kaplan]

I agree that we've veered off topic, which is at least in part my fault, and while the tangent is interesting (and perhaps even necessary for discussing the film), I agree it's best to get back to Do the Right Thing.

I can't really argue too much with Jun-Dai's perception of the film, except to say that I don't agree with his conclusion. I see nothing in this film that would promote flexibility of perspectives.

I don't know if this will be useful or not, but if someone who likes this film would like to join me, I'd like to compare views of this film as a dialogue for kids.

I'll go first, and think about watching this with my own son when he's older (something I do not plan on doing). He is biracial, and I can see good from watching various films and shows (such as Roots) and then discussing the topic with him. But I see nothing useful in watching Do the Right Thing.

Me: So, son, what did you learn from watching the movie?

Him: Um, deep down everyone's a racist and racial violence is inevitable.

Me: No, that's not true. The movie might imply that to you, but it's not correct. Now, what did you learn from the film?

Him: Um, that two wrongs make a right. After all, Mookie did the right thing, so if violence is made against your group, you need to make it back against them.

Me: No, that's not right son. Mookie didn't do the right thing and two wrongs don't make a right. That just leads to a vicious circle. So, what did you learn from the film?

Him: That if you're not black it's a bad idea to open a business in a mostly black neighborhood cause eventually they'll burn it down?

Me: No, there should be more interaction and mingling of the races.

Him: But won't that just promote more violence. Look at the movie.

Me: No, the movie is telling you the wrong thing. Now think son, what lesson did you learn from the movie?

Him: It's not a good idea to go to Harlem if you're not black?

Me. No, no, no...

If someone would like to propose an alternate dialog with your own children, I'd be very interested in seeing it.