While visiting a relative recently, she recommended I watch the movie “American History X”. She said it offers a refreshing perspective on racism. I told her that anti-racism is code for “anti-white” and she replied that this movie is anti-everybody, whites, blacks and so on. I replied that I’d spend two hours of my time watching “American History X” if she would, in turn, watch “A Conversation About Race” with me afterwards. We had a deal.
Though my relative is intelligent, she clearly is not very adept at recognizing propaganda. “American History X” is propaganda. Though it does appear to give air time to pro-white sentiments and grievances, it does so in such a way that the vast majority of viewers would not take seriously. Movies are, by nature, visual tools. When things are said, in a movie, by rough-looking teens who sport swastika tattoos, their words do not have as much credibility as the words spoken by a civilized-looking character. This is why defense attorneys make sure their clients are dressed well in front of a judge and jury. People are not rational creatures.
Thus, when the main character, Derek, speaks to his mob about the evils of illegal immigration, his words ring true – until the very graphic depiction of their attack on an immigrant-owned store (and its employees) is shown directly afterwards. At that point, his entire speech loses its appeal. Just as the viewer is repulsed by the destruction and torture that follow, so too will he reject the views that brought about these acts. Clearly this was the intention of the producers.
Similarly, when we see a dinner conversation where Derek’s father is explaining the evils of affirmative action, the audience may sympathize with him – until he makes a general statement about “niggers”. At that point, all his valid objections to affirmative action dissolve into naught.
The movie features several graphic depictions of violence. All but one is perpetrated by whites:
1) The movie opens with some black gangbangers trying to steal Derek’s truck. He responds by shooting one of them to death and then killing the second. After this orgy of blood, the look on Derek’s face clearly shows how delighted he is with his deed. He smiles a very devilish smile for the cameras. The truck theft was simply an excuse for Derek to dispatch some niggers.
2) I have already described the graphically depicted attack on the immigrant-owned store. The implication is that this is what white pride and anti-immigrant sentiment naturally lead to.
3) While in prison, Derek learns that his white friends are not really friends at all. In fact, they have no redeeming qualities. We are treated to a disturbing depiction of Derek getting raped by other skinheads. What provoked this attack? It seems Derek had met a black inmate who was friendly and funny. We are to believe that neo-Nazis (and, by extension, all pro-whites) are oblivious to the fact that there are some nice, and funny, black people. For Derek to meet such a black man is a revelation to him. Apparently, he had lived in a cave until then.
4) In what appears to be a flashback to the original shooting scene, we are shown how Derek forces one of the gangbangers to put his teeth to the curb – and then brutally kicks his head in. Later, we hear a description of the sound that man’s head made as it was smashed into the concrete. Very graphic indeed.
5) The last graphic violent scene of the movie, and the only one committed by a black, is when Derek’s younger brother (Danny) is shot by the brother of one of the gangbangers he’d killed. In contrast to Derek’s satanic expression of joy, the black shooter bears an expression of anger and revenge. He didn’t kill for the joy of killing. No, he killed as revenge for an incident the previous day. This last shooting, though shocking since we’ve come to know and love the victim, is no more graphic than any other shooting we see on T.V. or the movies. It could have been a shooting from an old western.
Not surprisingly, the only morally sound powerful character in the movie is the school teacher (who also has two degrees). This is “Dr. Sweeney”, played by Avery Brooks. Sweeney can do no wrong. He is godlike, morally impeccable, caring, soft-spoken – and black. There were other characters who are morally upright in this movie: Derek’s mother and sister always oppose his evil ways – but they come across as victims. Derek’s mother is a chain-smoking, pitiful character who never even considered that bringing home her Jewish boyfriend might cause a scene with her neo-Nazi sons and friend. His sister is merely an incidental character whose only purpose seems to be to suffer abuse at the hands of Derek and his worthless friends.
American History X would have us believe that the only flavor of pro-white is the neo-Nazi flavor. That white skinheads are the ones mostly responsible for ransacking stores and committing prison rape. After all, blacks would never do such things.
There are a couple of worthy scenes. The basketball scene, where the white teenagers challenge the blacks and beat them honorably is a good one. One of the white teens, at some point, says something to the effect of “Why should we walk with fear in our own neighborhoods?” The school bathroom scene, where some black kids are beating up a white kid for allegedly telling on them for cheating is another good one. In that scene, Danny confronts the blacks with a look of courage and essentially drives them away. Those two scenes do inspire white pride and a wish that more whites could be more like them.
But good propaganda must have some truth mixed in. It must have something its proponents can point to and say, “See! They do show both sides of the story.” In my opinion, the good parts of American History X do not make it a good movie. Instead, they make it good propaganda.
As for A Conversation About Race, my relative enjoyed it and did find it thought-provoking.
The only kind of pro-white there is according to Hollywood
Excellent analsis JAY. I was at University and relatively liberal when I first saw this movie. I recall when I first watched the movie recoiling at the older white guy who seemed to be the brains behind the gathering of skin heads, and who was grooming Derek as a future leader. At the time I remember thinking he was the most evil character in the movie and was delighted when Derek shoved him over.
The propaganda didn’t entirely work on me though. I enjoyed the basketball scene and the observations about affirmative action and Derek’s complaint about everything black being portrayed as cool rang true.
Also, I found the propaganda didn’t entirely work on others. A couple of years later I briefly flatted with some older guys and one of them had a teenage son. The son would often make disparaging comments about minorities. Anyway, it turned out he loved American History X! I remember it was on tv one day & he and a friend were often agreeing with things Derek would say, and admired the way he stood up to the black characters.
That said, the movie is clearly designed to portray many moderate concerns (affirmative action, illegal immigration etc) as extreme.
I was especially bothered by how they made the prison rapists members of the Aryan Brotherhood. White men are more likely to be the victims of prison rape precisely because there aren’t many whites in prison, and the few that are typically aren’t in gangs, unlike the blacks and Hispanics. Most Aryan Brotherhood members join as much to protect themselves against black and Hispanic rapists as for any racial views they may have held before their imprisonment.
Yup, you got it. I even recall reading about a ‘Nazi Low Riders’ gang where Whites and Hispanics had teamed up for protection.
The prison rapists probably would be in the AB, though, I’d think. For their own protection!
I know nothing really about US Neo-Nazis and their behavior.
But one thing I do know is that if there is an unprovoked act of violence in this country, the perpetrators are more than likely black.
As for the movie, pure anti pro-white propaganda. It was produced solely to vilify anyone white that does not embrace “diversity”.
One of the fundamental rules of public relations: Concede the words if you must, but ALWAYS control the flow of images.
Yeah, nice analysis.
“Clearly this was the intention of the producers.”
Exactly. You hear these reasonable-sounding arguments against affirmative action? Well… that’s what a NAZI would say!!!!!!!
Propaganda doesn’t work on everyone. The first time I saw AHX, waaay before any of this nonsense I do now, I thought: That makes sense. We shouldn’t have affirmative action.
The attack on the Asian-owned store is gratuitous — and not the good kind of gratuitous (French/girl).
“It seems Derek had met a black inmate who was friendly and funny.”
I believe it was due to Derek being too committed to The Cause. The other skinheads were largely hypocrites and fakers, selling drugs to Hispanic prisoners and so on. Derek rejected them and was attacked.
Part of this is true to life: the Aryan Nation exists to defend white inmates from other-race gangs. However, the white prison rapists are just propaganda. Even more ridiculous: that the friendly, funny black inmate somehow convinced his brothas not to kill and rape Derek. F&%$ing ludicrous.
“Sweeney can do no wrong. He is godlike, morally impeccable, caring, soft-spoken – and black.”
Ah yes, the ol’ Magical Negro.
PS The basketball scene rocks.
Your socks.
Without American History X, I wouldn’t even have any fictional evidence that White men in the general prison population* rape other prisoners. So the movie has always annoyed me in that way, because I can’t say for sure that it is wrong. There is a nagging doubt.
Most evidence about prison violence seems to be anecdotal. I tracked down estimates, IIRC, of 12,000, 60,000, and 140,000 rapes per year in the American prison system. Which is a big range. Judging by outside-the-prison evidence it’s unlikely that many of the perps are White, since a White guy is less likely to be a rapist and less likely to be in prison.
All of which adds up to, prison is just another evidence of the massive, oozing double standard that screws everything up for White and Asian men in this country. The deterrent effect of prison is dramatically disparate for the various races, which forces Second Class Citizens to back down in verbal confrontations with NAMs. In street fight case, for example, in which all the evidence is serious injuries to both parties and two statements saying the other guy started it, the aggregate odds of each guy going to prison are 50%. Yet the prison sentence amounts basically to fun ‘n’ games (plenty of TV, food that is technically better than Taco Bell, and the occasional chance to pull an Amiri Baraka on a White man) for the NAMs, and sheer hell for the SCCs. (Incidentally, even without prison, a few days in jail can cost you your job, which means that unemployed people and career criminals have the same advantage in a verbal confrontation–more disparate impact against SCCs.)
Why don’t people notice this? I bet Jared Taylor has. I want to buy that man a pizza.
* I’m specifically excluding certain categories of sex criminal, who would probably victimize anyone at any time if they weren’t killed first.
What’s my solution to the disparate impact of the “He started it / No, HE started it!” assault & battery case?
Well I’m glad you asked.
First, segregate the prisons racially.
Next, construct new prisons (using money diverted from the Afghanistan campaign, of course!) with individual cells for each member and no television. Prison should be boring (and I can promise you, based on my last trip to the DMV, that boredom is one form of torture the state has no scruples about.)
At worst, it would be solitary confinement with only 30 minutes a day for solo exercise. But for the ordinary prison population (the guys who don’t bite the guy on the hand when he hands them their plate of food), confinement would be broken up by several hours of contact, by closed-circuit television, with any of their friends and family who are not convicts or ex-convicts. Your pastor, your uncle, your girlfriend, and your kids could come by and play tele-checkers with you, read stories, whatever.
With this in place, sentences could be reduced because the deterrent effect of all that boredom would be amplified. Pressure on families would be reduced because the prisoners would need their families so much. There would be no prison culture at all.
And best of all, it would level the playing field between the man with something to lose and the dirtbag. The former would have a longer time orientation and more self-control, which would continue to pressure him to back down in the street confrontation, but the deterrent effect of prison would be greater on anyone whose friends and family were mostly ex-convicts. The hardcore criminals would be left with their white sheep uncle and maybe a kindly nun or too, to keep them company.
With family men, nice guys, the working class finally given a chance to stand tall on the street, being responsible would start to be cool again. Because that’s really all there is to cool–looking tough and not backing down. Right now the system is stacked so that only stupid men, quasi-suicidal men, and men with organized crime contacts are willing to defend their manly honor on the street. Changing that is no more impossible than abolishing Medicaid or finishing the border fence.
A couple of thoughts about your plan:
I mostly agree. The main reason is to protect the kinds of inmates that would be raped. One other thing — The communication, both quasi-personal and snail mail, other than with doctors and lawyers, has to be closely monitored, and in some cases, prohibited. I have heard stories about Pelican Bay inmates, 23 hours a day in the cell, 1 a day in an empty exercise room, being able to control drug enterprises and gangs because of their fancy drawings they send and receive in the mail.
Let’s not lose contact with each other (I have added you to my blogroll) — If I ever become a major politician, you’re in my inner circle of advisers.
Whoa, that’s a nice compliment. Thanks.
Pingback: New to the Blogroll « Countenance Blog
Speaking of prison rape, I’ve heard some pretty bad stories but this one is the worst.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/896211-businessman-tells-of-south-african-prison-rape-that-left-him-hiv-positive
A bit of history – after WW 2 there were many German POWs in USSR and Russians used to refer to them as (pick your own expletive) fascists. Perplexed Germans kept correcting them – but we are not fascists – we are Nazis. Russian propaganda department had no idea that there were actual differences between the two. Nazis, in the minds of American liberals, are simply personification of evil and in the movies they will express opinions that liberals want to make sound evil by association.
Why would Nazis be ever associated with white movement and how come in many movies blacks are shown as opposing the Nazis and expressing this great moral indignation?
What did Nazis ever do to blacks? Please educate me – while Nazis fought in Africa, has there ever been the extermination camp where black Africans were systematically murdered, I don’t think so? I am not aware of blacks specifically being targeted and killed by Nazis during WW2.
I do recall, however, that Nazis exterminated millions of lily white Jews and killed tens of millions of very white looking Russians, Poles, Czechs, Brits and other pale faced Europeans.
And here we have brain dead American liberals making cheap anti white propaganda movies attempting to portray Nazis as pro-White?
You pretty much have it right, Eddie. Hitler may have made anti-black statements once or twice, but they are obviously not very quotable. In any case they are nowhere near as extreme as his anti-Jewish or anti-Slavic statements. The National Socialists never target blacks or tried to invade any black country, though as you mentioned there was fighting in North Africa, between Italian colonies and British colonies, with Germany supporting the former.
Italian Fascist views of race and ethnicity are pretty close to treating “race as a social construct”. Mussolini said nationality was a feeling, nothing more (though the Fascists were emotionalist enough that that was quite a lot–if you proved your FEELING to the nation of Italy it meant you were fit to participate, and perhaps, eventually to rule). He mocked the idea that zoölogy could be applied to humans.
The National Socialists, on the other hand, loved to apply science to everything. They were clearly more successful with jet engines than with zoölogy. Austrian and Bavarians are no more blonde, no more pale than Ashkenazim or Slavs, perhaps less. Since they didn’t have DNA evidence, the NS had to rely on linguistic information, which is interesting but no particularly germane to questions of who is descended from whom.
So anyway, you’re right, it appears that current US usage is more or less the same as Russian usage in the mid-1940s. Every now and then I try to explain that Fascism is an outgrowth of anarcho-syndicalism, while NS is a syncretic mixture of Marxism, pseudo-anthropology, pan-Germanism, and hero worship. Mussolini eventually got fired. Can anyone even imagine Hitler being fired? And yet the systems are both “evil totalitarian dictatorships led by racists”.
That part makes me laugh, but when they try to add Franco into the mix, I start to get kind of mad.
Pingback: ”American History X”: The dark side of American history « Radu presents: The Movie-Photo Blog