Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Hollywood and the Creation of Racial Resentment

                In May 2012 a Dallas man “randomly” stabbed a shopper inside a Target store.  Antowann Davis took a butcher knife out of its packaging and stabbed Martha Jones in the back.  “He stabbed me in the back and kept walking,” Jones reported.  Jones claims he never spoke to her, or even tried to grab her purse and she had never seen him before.  In January 2013 Kerri Dalton was shopping with her child at Bed Bath and Beyond in Middletown, New Jersey.  She was stabbed more than a dozen times by Tyrik S. Haynes, a complete stranger.  This was described as another “random” attack where robbery was not the motive.   In July 2011 Nkosi Thandiwe shot three young females in Atlanta, Georgia, killing one and paralyzing another.  Dick Reed, a media analyst in Berkeley, wondered about, “the randomness of it.”

            There was nothing mysterious or “random” about these attacks.  All the assailants were black and all the victims were white strangers.  This fact is frequently unmentioned by the news media.  People are critical of the media’s role in suppressing this type of information.  Many people do not realize that the media does this because they play an important role in creating the climate in which these attacks take place.  This was amply demonstrated by the distorted media coverage of the Zimmermann/Martin incident.

            Part of the radical progressive agenda is to create resentment.  Community organizer, Saul Alinsky proposed in his Rules for Radicals: “The first step in community organization is community disorganization.  The organizer . . . must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community.”  Alinsky essentially reiterated the advice of Vladimir Lenin in his pamphlet What is to be done? "There is no segment in the population without its circle of discontented and maladjusted and alienated individuals, predisposed targets for radical hate propaganda, who can be hooked up to a revolutionary mass movement ... We must use every grain of discontent.  We must collect every grain of protest."

            This article will explore the role of the film industry in promoting an atmosphere of discontent. Hollywood plays a powerful part in creating this atmosphere.  Lenin commented, "Communists must always consider that of all the arts the motion picture is the most important."  Of course Alinsky was a local agitator and Vladimir Lenin was a revolutionary.  Their recommendations could not have had any influence on successful, fantastically wealthy Hollywood moguls.  However, on close inspection it becomes obvious that a significant segment of Hollywood is following Lenin’s advice.  They are aware of the results of their agitation and since they continue in the project, they must approve of its outcome.

            To begin, the 1988 film Mississippi Burning, which was “loosely based on an FBI investigation,” appeared.  After watching the movie a group of “youths” in Wisconsin attacked fourteen-year-old Gregory Riddick leaving him with permanent brain damage. Todd Mitchell reportedly told his friends, "Do you all feel hyped up to move on some white people? There goes a white boy.  Go get him." The movie “42” about the career of Jackie Robinson rated a meeting at the White House.  Michelle Obama, Harrison Ford, members of the cast and 80 students took part in a “frank conversation about race.”  The First Lady commented, "I know I was mad just watching the movie."  She reported that the Robinsons, “met hatred with decency."  Another recent film has been noticed by the White House: The Butler.  President Obama said, “You know, I did see The Butler, and I did tear up.  I teared up just thinking about not just the butlers who have worked here in the White House, but an entire generation of people who were talented and skilled, but because of Jim Crow, because of discrimination, there was only so far they could go.  And yet, with dignity and tenacity, they got up and worked every single day, and put up with a whole lot of mess because they hoped for something better for their kids.”

            These films represent a film genre where all the blacks are all good. The whites, with few exceptions, are evil.  History is distorted in an effort to appeal to the viewers’ emotions. One reviewer of 12 Years a Slave, a film that portrays the horrors of slavery, claimed, “The film is so powerful it caused some critics to walk out, and left others in tears. The film has already made many Americans uneasy about their past.”  Are Hollywood leaders aware of the consequences of their films.  A reporter asked Quinton Tarantino if there was a link between screen violence and real violence, he responded, “I’m not answering your question.  It’s none of your damn business what I think about that.”

            The reviewer of Fruitvale Station, a true story about the fatal Oakland shooting of an unarmed young black man, reported, “Some are even suggesting it could threaten to reignite the racial tensions that are always simmering below the surface of American society.”  Louis Farrakhan commenting on the movie Django, stated, “To me, the movie had a purpose.  If a black man came out of that movie thinking like Django and white people came out of that movie seeing the slaughter of white people and they are armed to the teeth, it’s preparation for a race war.” 

            Jamie Foxx who stars in the movie, Django, joked, “My name is Jamie Foxx. And I got a movie coming out, … I play a slave. But don’t be worried about it because I get out [of] the chains, I get free, I save my wife, and I kill all the white people in the movie. How great is that?”  Django came out shortly before Christopher Dorner went on his killing spree.  Marc Hill commented about the incident on TV, “It’s almost like watching ‘Django Unchained’ in real life. It’s kind of exciting.”  We are about to be living in exciting time.

No comments:

Post a Comment