What's new

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

Jun-Dai Bates

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Aug 16, 1999
Messages
148
I am still waiting for one concrete example of one of these commonly held racial biases that everyone apparently has.
You are looking for simplicity in something that is too complicated. But here are some commonly held racial prejudices:

Many people in this state (California) believe that latinos that don't speak English should learn to speak English, and that public education should provided to them only in English. But they do not believe that English-speakers should be required to learn Spanish.

Many people believe that middle-class African-Americans don't do as well in school and on their SAT scores because there is some genetic basis for a lower average intelligence in African-Americans.

Many people refuse to believe that the SAT has a racial bias towards people raised in the dominant culture, or they believe that if it does, it is the responsibility of people in minority subcultures to raise their children with an understanding of these things in the dominant culture rather than a responsibility of the people constructing the test to make the test multicultural.

Many people believe (like Berlusconi) that people in the middle east are inherently violent and savage because Islamic culture is less developed or less enlightend than Western culture.

These are just a few examples of commonly held beliefs in this country that indicate a strong racial prejudice. Less strong biases/prejudices are more difficult to point out.

Everybody has biases, and some of them are racial. This is not just human nature, but it is the logical order of things. If I meet someone that is Indonesian, in my interaction, there exists a dilemma: if I treat him the same as most of the people I interact with (i.e. as if he were not Indonesian--this is the colorblind approach to race relations), then I'm acting on a bias for the dominant culture and ignoring something that is probably very important to him; if, on the other hand, I treat him somehow differently (i.e. aware of the fact that he is Indonesian, and that he has a different cultural background), then the situation becomes more complicated because of my ignorance of Indonesian culture. Obviously this is only part of my interaction with him, but the mode that I choose in interacting with him will have an effect on the whole interaction.

Let's drill into this a little further. It is difficult/impossible to delineate what parts of a person's identity are cultural and what parts are strictly personal. In other words, people resist some cultural influences, or they have some aspects of themselves that are simply as a result of the family they grew up in that are not really part of the culture as a whole. This means that when I encounter a family of Irish people, I can't be certain what of their personality comes from Irish, and what parts are just them. As my exposure increases, my understanding of Irish culture in some ways will be increasingly accurate. Regardless, things that I attribute to Irish culture will never be true for all Irish people (though there will be a few things that will approach this).

Part of my "exposure" consists of meeting Irish people, but part of my "exposure" will also come from popular culture, and this includes stereotypes of Irish people, music by Irish people, books about Irish people, seeing Irish clothing, etc. Given the way brains work, I will make connections through all of these things, and a perception of what Irish culture is will develop. This perception is my own, and while it will have things in common with other people's perception, in detail it remains uniquely my own (and it will change over time).

As much as I will try to see stereotypes for what they are, and understand that people's perspectives on Irish culture are simply perspectives, encountering these things will have an effect on my understanding of Irish culture (though not necessarily in predictable ways). Also, internally, I will create my own stereotypes. Not stereotypes in the sense of caricature, necessarily, but I will generalize, and if in a novel someone is described as being Irish, this will affect my perception of that character. Similarly, if I am told before being introduced to someone that they are Irish, I will generate a certain amount of supposition about that person before meeting them. If I find out that someone is Irish and they do something a certain way, I might expect that they will do something else a certain way. Can Irish people hold their liquor? Do they like to get drunk more often than other people? Well, that is the stereotype, and while I have no figures to back it up, I would not be surprised if it was true. Does this mean that my friend James can hold his liquor and likes to get drunk? Not necessarily, but if he does, I'm likely to attribute some of that to his being Irish. This is all natural and human, and much too complicated to prove anything about scientifically, but it is also something that is studied scientifically by many people.
 

Joseph Young

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 30, 2001
Messages
1,352
Based on the discussion in this thread (which I believe has been largely civil and productive) it's clear that films like 'Do the Right Thing' exist to promote dialogue of this nature. A huge tenet of artists like Lee is that if unless you frame an important issue (like racism) in a controversial shade, it is more apt to be ignored. The controversial nature of some of Lee's films cannot be solely attributed to his personal biases, but from his desire as a filmmaker to make provocative material. Which he undoubtedly does.

~j
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
If someone would like to propose an alternate dialog with your own children, I'd be very interested in seeing it.
Why should this be framed as a dialogue with children? It's an R-rated movie, and children are not the intended audience.

M.
 

Jun-Dai Bates

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Aug 16, 1999
Messages
148
Him: It's not a good idea to go to Harlem if you're not black?

Me. No, no, no...
No, but you'll have to expect to spend a fair amount of time being aware that you are not black, which will probably be an unusual situation for you. Many black people, on the other hand, find that they spend a good deal of the time being aware of the fact that they are not white. So what is a fact of life for a number of people, might an unusual situation for you. Racism is an issue we deal with it when we choose to talk about it, or on the rare occasions that it enters into our life through other means. For many people in this country, however, racism is something they deal with every day.

I think that this film is actually a very good film to show children (I have none). I don't know how young your son is, but rather than shelter him from seeing what is reality for other people, I would recommend watching it with him and making efforts that he not misunderstand the film. My parents didn't do much to shelter me as a child (though I was and am still very much sheltered by my society), and perhaps even that was too much, as far as I am concerned. In any case, if your kid is over 10 (when I first saw Down By Law), I don't see what harm it can do him--maybe he will even change your mind about the film.
 

Lew Crippen

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 19, 2002
Messages
12,060
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.
Certainly in my experience a good many of us spent many hours discussing this film and what it meant and meant for us (society) when it was first released.

I agree with Eric in that it is Lee’s intent to present us with the same choice as Mookie. Lee sets the audience up by making Mookie so likable, so that our reaction to his action is all the more intense. We would not be nearly so shocked if the action were taken by Buggin’ Out, for example (this is also why we react so strongly to Mother Sister’s sudden desire for vengeance).

But as to whether his action was indeed the right thing, this lies in one’s view of what one should do in such a case. As I wrote in another post, I believe that Lee shows us that Mookie moves from passivness and non-involvement (the local social issue is the one of pictures of blacks on Sal’s walls) to one one of action and involvement. So in the sense that it is right to become involved with local, social issues and to take action, Mookie has indeed done the right thing.

Of course, from the viewpoint of property destruction, it may not have been the right thing, nor from Sal’s perspective. But Lee (at least) mitigates both of these things in his final scene (the insurance discussion—and the semi-reconciliation of Sal and Mookie). Bringing us back to Mookie having done the right thing.

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’.

Aside from the metaphors, watching the film with no literary pretensions still results in a challenge at the end requiring consideration of the justification of a violent act in response to a violent act.
 

Holadem

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2000
Messages
8,967
No, but you'll have to expect to spend a fair amount of time being aware that you are not black, which will probably be an unusual situation for you. Many black people, on the other hand, find that they spend a good deal of the time being aware of the fact that they are not white.
:emoji_thumbsup: :emoji_thumbsup: :emoji_thumbsup: :emoji_thumbsup: :emoji_thumbsup:

--
Holadem - My insightful post of the day.
 

Lew Crippen

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 19, 2002
Messages
12,060
I treat him somehow differently (i.e. aware of the fact that he is Indonesian, and that he has a different cultural background), then the situation becomes more complicated because of my ignorance of Indonesian culture.
As a bit of comic relief, if I did meet that person from Indonesia and acted according to my expectations of her culture, I’d wind up offending a Hindu from Bali, because I thought her to be a Muslim from Java. :D
 

Tino

Taken As Ballast
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 1999
Messages
23,568
Location
Metro NYC
Real Name
Valentino
IMO, an act of violence can NEVER be the right thing. Neccessary perhaps, but never right.

Very interesting thread btw.
 

Todd Terwilliger

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 18, 2001
Messages
1,745
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?
Let's not forget that the issue was not Sal's color but the color of his wall of fame. If Sal had put a few black celebrities on his wall, it would have diffused the whole situation.

Buggin' Out draws his anger from the theme that Sal has not really integrated into the community in which he lives and serves. He'll take their money and their patronage but not their people.
 

Jun-Dai Bates

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Aug 16, 1999
Messages
148
IMO, an act of violence can NEVER be the right thing. Neccessary perhaps, but never right.
Okay, this difference of opinion is quite clearly just a difference of opinion over semantics (i.e. what's "right"). I would, using my definitions of "necessary" and "right" argue that an act of violence can never be necessary, but it can be right. I don't however, think that an act of violence can ever be good (mostly because my definition of "violence" involves the implication of bad).

In any case, while I do not believe that the ends necessarily justify the means, neither do I believe that the means necessarily justify the ends. If an act of violence is necessary in order to (yes, I do believe that violence can be necessary "in order to" accomplish something, I just don't believe that it is necessary in and of itself) achieve a good end, then there may be justification for it, but it has to be weighed.

In the context of the movie, however, our main disagreement seems to be about the end that this violence justifies (it doesn't seem to be a means to an end so much as just a means by itself, but that also does not mean that it is unjustified).
 

Lew Crippen

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 19, 2002
Messages
12,060
OK George, I’ll play (though I tend to agree with Michael in not thinking this an appropriate film for children).

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

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

Me: Do you see anything reasonable, that someone might have done that could have helped prevent the racial violence?

Him: Well, I guess Sal could have recognized that most of his customers were black and he might have got even more business if he put up some pictures of blacks on the wall.

Me: Good idea. After all this takes place in Brooklyn, so it would be pretty easy to put up a picture of Jackie Robinson alongside Joe DiMaggio.

Him: Who is Jackie Robinson?

Me: I’m really beginning to feel old.

:D

Basically I think that there are a lot of alternate, positive ways for the discussion to proceed.
 

Todd Terwilliger

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 18, 2001
Messages
1,745
Lew,

Good post. I agree completely. I think this film is full of right things that do or don't get done - I think it would have been the right thing for Sal to integrate his wall of fame but he choose not to do it and, in result, the tension escalates. One thing that Mookie does at the end of the film that he really never does before, is take an active role in his life. His very job of a delivery boy seems endemic of his entire life and attitude - never really doing anything himself, just going back and forth forth and back. Whether violence was right or not, Mookie awakening into an active being is certainly right.
 

Jun-Dai Bates

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Aug 16, 1999
Messages
148
Hmm. . . I don't know what it means, but I just realized that most of us are also in the S&S contest. We ought to have discussions like this for each film.
 

Rex Bachmann

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 10, 2001
Messages
1,972
Real Name
Rex Bachmann
post #32:


At the time of the film's release I saw a late-night talk show interview with Danny Aiello where he stated that Director Lee allowed him quite a bit of input and improvisational freedom in developing his character ("Sal"). I believe Mr. Lee confirmed this in another interview I saw (or maybe read) at the time. Whatever emerged, then, was not merely a product of Mr. Lee's mind, but also that of Mr. Aiello's. At least, that's the way I understand it. (I believe others in the cast stated this also to be the case with their characters, as well, although those might've been in connexion with other Spike Lee films.)


Even though talk here has proceeded on the topic of race relations and beliefs about them, I will forebear to impose upon this audience the detailled reply that I'm preparing to some of Mr. george kaplan's comments on my earlier posts, since it, at most, only tagentially speaks to the specifics of Do the Right Thing. As I have a real life that takes precedence over the "virtual" one, the reply has become just too long and detailled for me to get through by now. I hope, instead, to post that in a separate thread in the "After Hours" section within the next day. I'll call the thread something like "What's in a Name?: 'Racism' 101". Those who are interested can go there and join in, if they wish.


I may post an alerting link here, with the indulgence of the thread originator.
 

Kevin M

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2000
Messages
5,172
Real Name
Kevin Ray
I think it would have been the right thing for Sal to integrate his wall of fame but he choose not to do it and, in result, the tension escalates.
You see this is a point that I don't agree with, Sal is Italian American and it is his right to put whomever he wishes up on his wall in his Italian American restaurant, to suggest that pressuring someone into seeing things your way is no more "The Right Thing" than instigating a riot. What if a group of Italian Americans whom frequented an African American restaurant began pressuring the owner in increasing levels of belligerence to include pictures of Great Italians on the wall next to pictures of Malcolm X and MLK? Would they be right in this?
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. It was Sal's property, if I was in his shoes I wouldn't have done it either. I understand that this is the conundrum that Lee sets up in the script but I don't agree with the outcome, using force to instigate a personal philosophy is IMO never acceptable in modern society. There are of course exceptions to this but that is not the situation in this movie IMO.
 

Brook K

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2000
Messages
9,467
Except Lew, that the film doesn't show that deep down everyone is racist. There is no racist behavior from Da Mayor, MotherSister, Jade, Senor Love Daddy, the Richard Edson character who's name escapes me, John Savage, etc. George still hasn't answered this, choosing to gloss over it though it's been brought up several times.

Good idea Jun-Dai, though many films don't engender this type of discussion.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,646
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top