„Super-Predators:”

„Super-predators:”

Contrasting Movies by African American and Euro American Directors regarding the Zip Coon Stereotype

Diplomarbeit

zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Magisters der Philosophie

an der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz

vorgelegt von Kevin EBERHARD, BA BA

am Institut für Amerikanistik

Begutachterin: Univ.-Prof. Dr.phil. Nassim Winnie BALESTRINI

Graz, 2017

Ehrenwörtliche Erklärung

Ich erkläre ehrenwörtlich, dass ich die vorliegende Arbeit selbständig und ohne fremde Hilfe verfasst, andere als die angegebenen Quellen nicht benutzt und die den Quellen wörtlich oder inhaltlich entnommenen Stellen als solche kenntlich gemacht habe. Die Arbeit wurde bisher in gleicher oder ähnlicher Form keiner anderen inländischen oder ausländischen

Prüfungsbehörde vorgelegt und auch noch nicht veröffentlicht. Die vorliegende Fassung entspricht der eingereichten elektronischen Version.

Datum: Unterschrift

Acknowledgements

First, I would like to thank my advisor Dr.phil. Nassim Winnie Balestrini for her confidence, support, and valuable input and knowledge. Secondly, I want to thank my whole family, especially my parents, Richard and Sabine, who not only supported me financially during my studies, but also encouraged me to follow my interests, and by all that have made me into the person I am today. Finally yet importantly, I want to thank my girlfriend Sabrina for her mental support and academic as well as linguistic help, and my friends for making the last eight years the best I could ask for.

A sincere Thank you and Danke to all of you.

Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...... 6

2. Race and US Culture: The Development of the Zip Coon Stereotype from Slavery to Now ...... 13

2.1 Racialization of Non-Whites and the System of Slavery ...... 13

2.2 Stereotyping in Slavery: Justifying the Benign System ...... 14

2.3 Stereotyping after Slavery: Reconstructing Apartheid ...... 18

2.4 The Civil Rights Movement and the End of Overtly Racist Stereotyping ...... 20

2.5 The War on Drugs: The Stereotype of the Black Criminal ...... 22

2.6 The Clintons Fighting Super-predators ...... 27

2.7 The Gangsta: A Liberating and Oppressing Stereotype ...... 29

2.8 The Power of Stereotypes regarding Crime and Policing ...... 32

3. Hollywood and Race ...... 35

4. Racism in “Obamerica” (Bonilla-Silva 2010, xvi) ...... 43

4.1 Color-Blind Racism in Practice ...... 44

5. Movie Analyses: How White and Black Directors Deal with Race ...... 49

5.1 Euro American Directors: Perpetrating the Modern Zip Coon Stereotype ...... 50

5.1.1 The Black Supporting Cast in White America ...... 50

5.1.2 White Hope for Miserable Blacks ...... 55

5.1.3 Are we not All Racists? The Naturalization of Racism and White Supremacy ...... 59

5.1.4 Blaming the Victim by Sequencing in Crash ...... 63

5.1.5 The Perpetrator as Victim by Sequencing in Crash ...... 67

5.1.6 The Modern Zip Coon Stereotype: The Black Danger to White Society ...... 68

5.1.7 Cultural Racism as Extremism in American History X ...... 78

5.1.8 Cultural Racism in Spatiality in Dangerous Minds ...... 82

5.1.9 Cultural Racism in Education in Dangerous Minds ...... 87

5.2 African American Directors: Alternative Perspectives on Black Characters and Culture ...... 92

5.2.1 African Americans as Main Characters ...... 94

5.2.2 Decriminalizing the Black Youth ...... 98

5.2.3 Humanizing the Black Victim ...... 104

5.2.4 The Modern Zip Coon in Power in Training Day ...... 108

5.2.5 The Black (Neighbor) Hood: Beyond Poverty and Crime ...... 112

5.2.6 Police as Contributor to Violence in Black Movies ...... 117

5.2.7 The Creation of the Predator: Systemic Racism, Violence, and Excessive Manhood ...... 122

6. Conclusion ...... 128

7. Works Cited ...... 132

7.1 Primary Sources ...... 132

7.2 Secondary Sources ...... 132

1. Introduction

The uncountable cases of police shootings of African Americans in the US over the last years have upset large parts of (the African) American society. They have led to nation- wide protests organized by newly formed civil rights groups such as Black Lives Matter and

Color of Change. In the aftermath of the fatal police killings of African American youths such as Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri and Eric Garner in Staten Island, New York (among numerous others), US authorities have been forced to reconsider their treatment of African

Americans, especially considering policing and the justice system. Racism and discrimination of African Americans (and other minorities) were considered to be over, resolved in the Civil

Rights Movement in the 1960’s. In the post-civil rights era, racism and racists are no longer clearly visible because US society strongly rejects overt Jim Crow racism such as racial slurs, racial discrimination and segregation. Racism seems to be abolished and extinct, especially to the white middle class. However, these recent cases of police killings and their judicial (mis-

)treatment have uncovered unpleasant questions and facts when it comes to racial (in)equality.

As Michael Wines in the New York Times recently stated:

A nation with an African-American president and a significant, if struggling,

black middle class remains as deeply divided about the justice system as it was

decades ago. A Huffington Post-YouGov poll of 1,000 adults released this

week found that 62 percent of African-Americans believed Officer Wilson was

at fault in the shooting of Mr. Brown, while only 22 percent of whites took that

position.

This poll clearly indicates that both racial groups assess the very same incident – the fatal shooting of black Michael Brown by the white police officer Darren Wilson – differently. The fact that there is a difference in assessing this incident has to be regarded as more important than the question of who is right or wrong. Those significant differences show that Euro 6

Americans still largely mistrust African Americans and vice versa despite undeniable improvements regarding African Americans’ treatment and status in American society since the 1960’s. Wines highlights in his article that “the two races now work together, play sports together, attend school together. But they frequently go home to separate worlds.” In this context, those separate worlds are characterized by a different attitude towards police forces and the justice system. Police tactics such as stop-and-frisk and racial profiling cause and reinforce this different attitude of African Americans toward police as they rightfully perceive themselves as main targets of those police actions. The fact that African Americans are overrepresented in US prisons supports this perception: “At the end of 2013, 3 percent of all black males of any age were imprisoned, compared with 0.5 percent of whites. In 2011, one in

15 African-American children had a parent in prison, compared with one in 111 white children” (Wines).

These troubling statistics can be explained by examining the so-called War on Drugs declared by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Reagan regarded hard drugs, especially crack cocaine, as threats to the social order, and therefore he established special law enforcement and raised the penalties for drug offenders. Hand in hand with these policies went media campaigns mainly targeting African Americans as drug abusers and dealers. In this context,

Hillary Clinton used the term “super-predators,” which functions as the title of this thesis, when discussing the relation between African American youths and violence in 1996.

Speaking as the First Lady, Clinton explained how her husband and then-President Bill

Clinton would tackle violent crime in US cities, and more importantly who the main targets would be: “It’s not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called super-predators: no conscience, no empathy. We can talk about how they ended up that way, but first we must bring them to heel” (C-SPAN). This rhetoric used by Hillary Clinton has a long history – as this thesis will show – dating back to the beginnings of slavery: the

stereotype of the Zip Coon. This stereotype of the uncivilized and preposterous black man was used to legitimize excluding blacks from white civilized society during slavery. Since after slavery and particularly after the Civil Rights Movement black men have been part of

(civilized) society, this stereotype was adapted in modern times to that of the dangerous and violent black man. White society criminalized the free black man. This criminalization of black men as untamable beasts has served as a means to exclude them from civilized society by holding them in prisons or killing them on the streets.

In this thesis, I want to connect the Zip Coon stereotype with the super-predator imagery in order to understand the hostile environment for African Americans in US society better. To be more specific, I am studying racial stereotypes of African Americans, which have existed since the beginning of slavery. I want to discover how Hollywood directors –

African American and Euro American – use these racial stereotypes in their movies in order to make sense of the recent systemic transgressions of police and civilians against African

Americans from an historical and cultural perspective. As Hollywood is a predominantly Euro

American institution, which can be seen on all levels (directors, actors/acresses, sponsors), I consider movies by Euro American directors mainstream Hollywood movies. In contrast, movies by African American directors are frequently called and advertised as “black movies”

(Bonilla-Silva 2012, 7) in order to separate them from mainstream Hollywood movies. This distinction was established by advertisers as they appear to consider movies by black directors only or more interesting and relevant to black audiences. At the same time, mainstream

Hollywood movies, which mostly feature white characters, are considered and advertised as universal regarding race. I will use the same distinction – mainstream Hollywood vs. black movies – because they significantly differ in their respective representations of African

Americans on this same line. However, I will argue that this labeling is problematic and

should be abandoned because it discriminates against those movies labeled as black. This label clearly limits its opportunities to attract potential sponsors and larger audiences.

When researching for Hollywood films that deal with the current situation of African

Americans in US society, I could not find a great number, and particularly few that focus on racial profiling and police brutality. Besides the prime example Crash, directed by Paul

Haggis and released in 2004, there are few Hollywood movies directly focusing on racial relations in contemporary 21st century American cities. The majority of current Hollywood movies dealing with racism are set in the past: on the one hand, I could find movies which focus on 19th century slavery such as Django Unchained (2012) and 12 Years a Slave (2013).

On the other hand, I could find movies set before or at the time of the Civil Rights Movement such as Glory Road (2006), The Express (2008), and Selma (2014). Hollywood seems to neglect the current situation of African Americans in American cities, which media scholar

Robert L. Hilliard also observes: “There appear to be no current Hollywood films addressing the racial profiling that is restoring Jim Crow justice to America” (147). Because of this lack of current movies, particularly when it comes to African American directors, I decided to take into account Hollywood and independent movies from both African American and Euro

American directors from the last 25 years. This time span coincides with the US government’s

War on Drugs declared by Ronald Reagan in 1982, which led to mass incarceration of African

Americans due to drug charges (Alexander 49ff).

For my analysis, I will use theories and ideas from the studies of race and ethnicity, as

I will show that the African American identity is culturally constructed. This cultural construction of African American identity has been shaped by racial stereotypes from slavery, which can be found in current movies in their modern expressions. In this way, racial stereotypes influence people’s perception of African Americans, so that African Americans

are falsely perceived as violent and dangerous. These stereotypes help construct a reality in which various actors within US society systemically discriminate against African Americans.

In this paper, I will show how directors represent racism and racial discrimination in the movies chosen in the form of racial stereotypes. I will try to discover how and why these racial stereotypes dating back as long as the beginning of slavery are still used today. By analyzing a wider range of movies, I want to show how pervasive stereotypical images of

African Americans are in movies in order to understand US culture better. These stereotypes are ubiquitous in contemporary US culture, including news stories, music, and advertising.

Although they exist in all forms of media, one has to look closely to discover them. The stereotype of the black criminal is so well incorporated into US culture that it appears to be a natural fact. This analysis intends to uncover that these stereotypes are by no means racial truths but man-made cultural constructs. They are disguised because blatant racism is undesirable and is even punished in today’s society. In this modern context, racism occurs in a coded style. One example is mainstream Hollywood movies, in which African Americans are frequently portrayed as criminals, although there is no factual basis for the frequency of these representations. In this paper, it will be revealed which problematic messages highly acclaimed Hollywood movies distribute when it comes to race. Their messages are so deplorable that they should rather be shunned than praised.

A further part of this paper deals with how directors from different racial origins use racial stereotypes in the narrative of the movie. I will demonstrate that Euro American directors are prone to convey a conservative message in terms of race and racism, and therefore should not be celebrated for tackling controversial and complex issues of American culture. The majority of movies directed by Euro Americans reinforce white supremacy by using but not dismantling racial stereotypes, by featuring African Americans as mere props, and by stating that racism is inherent in all human being. In this way, they justify and

normalize white supremacy in US society and culture. What is more, these movies can be considered examples of systemic and institutional racism. On the one hand, these movies can be seen as systemic racism as they portray African Americans as criminals in a systemic way.

They use strategies of color-blind racism as proposed by Bonilla-Silva (2010) in order to reinforce white supremacy and justify violence against African Americans. While superficially tackling the manifold issues of racism in America, these directors convey their problematic views in coded language. In this way, they rather exacerbate than improve the miserable situations of numerous African Americans. They do certainly not deserve praise and awards for their problematic movies but harsh criticism. On the other hand, this systemically problematic representation is supported by the powerful institution of

Hollywood, the most important film industry in the world. It wields its institutional power over African Americans and other minority groups, and thus joins other US institutions in their systemic oppression of minority groups. Hollywood as an influential cultural institution is responsible for how it presents African Americans and the consequences such a flawed representation entails. Mainstream Hollywood movies play an important part in reinforcing white supremacy and racial inequality. As a consequence, directors and Hollywood as an institution have to be taken accountable for their actions (and lack thereof) when it comes to racial justice.

In contrast, African American directors attempt to represent African Americans and the problems they face in a more complex way. They provide their own perspective on racial realities in the US. This perspective is entirely different from mainstream Hollywood movies.

Although these directors also use criminal black characters in their movies, they mostly avoid presenting them as mere stereotypical characters. They feature criminal black characters in order to dismantle the stereotype of the black criminal by giving African American characters main stage. The depth of character, which is typical to white characters in mainstream

Hollywood movies, is given to African American characters. This gives directors the opportunity to transcend stereotypes and discuss issues of African Americans in a more complex way. At the same time, these movies counter mainstream, white supremacist narratives without presenting African Americans as flawless heroes or saints. In this way,

African American directors challenge the stereotype of the black criminal by digging deeper into the lives of African American characters, thus giving a more complex picture of these characters and their communities. These directors also discuss reasons for violence in the

African American community by linking it to systemic racism, which is totally neglected in

Euro American movies. All in all, African American directors transcend using and perpetuating the stereotype of the black criminal and directly criticize dominant white supremacist US culture as well as parts of their own culture.

The goal of this analysis is to link the contemporary representation of African

Americans in mainstream Hollywood movies to the racial history of the US as well as the frequent incidents of violence against African Americans. Examining the long history of violence, first against black slaves, then against African Americans, may help grasp the current situation of African Americans regarding their inequality in virtually every aspect of

US society. It should offer a possible explanation, not of the individual incidents of (police) violence against African Americans, but rather of the social and cultural context in which they occur on such a regular basis. It is clear that there are various reasons for (police) violence against African Americans, but analyzing the culture surrounding these incidents – both past and present – may offer valuable insight into the deeper level of the problem, which takes into account America’s special racial history and culture.

2. Race and US Culture: The Development of the Zip Coon Stereotype from

Slavery to Now

2.1 Racialization of Non-Whites and the System of Slavery

Since the first European settlers set foot on the American continent, race has functioned as a means to elevate white Europeans above every other race and establish white supremacy. White Europeans introduced race to differentiate them from other races, especially Africans and Natives on the African and American continents. The Europeans established a racial hierarchy with them at the top by which they justified enslavement,

Christianization, and land taking. Race and the racial hierarchy appear as natural and objective today, while Europeans socially constructed and gave shape to race over the last centuries. Feagin and Feagin claim that a racial group is nothing more than a “social group that persons inside or outside the group have decided is important to single out as inferior or superior, typically on the basis of real or alleged physical characteristics selected subjectively” (7). Again, the physical features and the process of deciding which features mean what are completely subjective. This process is called racialization: “the process by which those in the dominant white group, especially its elites, have defined and constructed certain groups as being racially inferior or superior for the purposes of societal placement and of group enrichment, segregation, or oppression” (Feagin and Feagin 5). By racializing social groups, white elites decided whom to consider white as opposed to non-white with all the privileges or disadvantages attached to the respective label. The racial groups of Italians and Irish are a good example to illustrate how subjective and dynamic racialization is.

American nativists considered both groups not part of and even inferior to the white race well into the first part of the 20th century. They believed immigrants from those countries contaminated the white, protestant, (Anglo-) American race and its culture. Today, nobody would regard Italians or Irish as non-white (Feagin and Feagin 7).

The racialization on the American continent started when European settlers encountered Native Americans. Settlers subjugated them as uncivilized “savages” and

“heathens.” Europeans interpreted their nakedness and symbiotic relationship to nature as primitive and inferior to what they considered civilization. Once the settlers had forced back numerous Native American tribes and established the first colonies, they needed work force to be able to use the vast resources of the continent. They found the work force in West-Africa, from where they transported enslaved Africans in masses over the Atlantic. It functioned so well for the settlers that slavery was to become the basis of the economy of the United States:

By the mid-1770s, the system of bond labor had been thoroughly transformed

into a racial caste system predicated on slavery. The degraded status of

Africans was justified on the ground that Negros, like the Indians, were an

uncivilized lesser race, perhaps even more lacking in intelligence and laudable

human qualities than the red-skinned natives. The notion of white supremacy

rationalized the enslavement of Africans, even as whites endeavored to form a

new nation based on the ideals of equality, liberty, and justice for all. Before

democracy, chattel slavery in America was born. (Alexander 25)

Americans at that time had little problems with the contradiction between enslaved Africans and the notion of equality for all, as proposed in the US constitution. On the one hand, they considered Africans naturally – as created by God – inferior to whites as “slaves were defined as three-fifths of a man, not a real, whole human being” (Alexander 26). On the other hand, slavery was such a successful and powerful component of US economy that only few dared to question it from an economic point of view.

2.2 Stereotyping in Slavery: Justifying the Benign System

Euro Americans introduced chattel slavery, which led to the economic upswing in the

South of the US, especially due to cotton plantations. Chattel slavery meant that Americans 14

stripped enslaved Africans of all human rights. Slave owners bought and sold slaves on slave markets; white plantation owners turned slaves into their work force, which accounted for their most valuable property. Although enslaved Africans were so valuable to their owners, slave owners treated their slaves extremely poorly. White US society not only accepted beating, torturing, and raping slaves, but they even expected these practices from slaveholders in order to act out the racial hierarchy and subordinate slaves physically and mentally

(Stampp 29).

As a justification for slavery as well as the harsh and often brutal treatment of slaves, slave owners commonly used stereotypes, which aimed to naturalize slavery and its consequences. These stereotypes included men, women, and even children. According to

Finkenstaedt, there are three generic categories of black stereotypes: the “brute or exotic primitive,” the “contented slave,” and the “mulatto” (157). Slave owners used the stereotype of the contented slave such as the Sambo and the Mammy to justify slavery as a benign state.

They presented slavery as widely accepted among slaves and even beneficial to them.

According to these stereotypes, slaves realized that they needed guidance by white slave owners for their own well-being. All in all, slavery was presented as a win-win situation for both white slave owners and black slaves. In contrast to this distorted image, slave owners frequently beat and tortured their slaves as a way of correcting behavior (Trampp 31). They justified this brutal treatment of slaves by using the stereotype of the brute or exotic primitive.

Similar to Native Americans, slaves were presented as uncivilized, brutal, and animalistic:

The stereotype of the Negro brute, for instance, 'the beast in our newly found

jungle,' was the means by which whites contrasted their civilizational

refinement to the savagery of the black, and rationalized their exploitation of

him. His presumed barbarism represented the primitive human past - which he

carried on his back in the color of his skin and which disqualified him for

participation in white society. (Finkenstaedt 208)

The brute stereotype referred to men, women, and children. The male version was called Zip

Coon, who was unsuited to freedom because of his criminal, brutal, stupid, (sexually) violent, and uncivilized behavior and nature (Pilgrim “The Coon Caricature”). Social scientist J.

Stanley Lemons describes him as such:

Zip Coon was a preposterous, citified dandy. In the minstrel shows he was

easily recognized in his bright, loud, exaggerated clothes: swallow-tail coat

with wide lapels, gaudy shirts, striped pants, spats, and top hat. He was a high-

stepping strutter with a mismatched vocabulary. He put on airs, acted elegant,

but was betrayed by his pompous speech filled with malapropisms. (102)

Since 1834, the image below has existed for the Zip Coon, which was connected to a popular ethnic song (Birch):

White Americans used this stereotype to show that slaves were unfit to live in freedom and 16

needed the guiding hand of their slave owners. Moreover, it justified harsh punishments, whippings, and torture in slavery. The Zip Coon has been adapted for following times, which will be discussed in the next chapters.

In addition, there existed two versions of the brute stereotype for female slaves. The first one was the counterpart of the Zip Coon, the angry black woman or Sapphire. She was presented as a masculinized, vicious, mannish, violent, man hating, not mothering, backstabbing, not attractive, and de-sexed female slave (West 295). Similar to Zip Coon, white Americans used the Sapphire to justify violence in slavery. The other brute stereotype was that of the Jezebel. Her features were oversexed, she was “sexually promiscuous and immoral” (West 294). Slave owners used the Jezebel stereotype to justify rape in slavery.

Although the features of Sapphire and Jezebel were oppositional, there was no clear line between the two; slave owners could even view female slaves as both at the same time.

Likewise, slave owners regarded black children in a distorted way. Children of slaves or Pickaninnies were presented and seen as animalistic and oversexed in order to justify overwork and death on sugar plantations as well as rape in slavery (Pilgrim “The Pickaninny

Caricature”). All these stereotypes were so pervasive in US culture before and after the Civil

War that virtually everyone living in the US knew them: “They were so familiar that few people had any notion that they degraded black Americans” (Lemons 102). By using and disseminating these stereotypes, people in the United States – not only in the South – attempted to overcome the juxtaposition of slavery and constitutionals rights and values such as equality, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness. White Americans had to believe that black slaves were naturally inhumane, so that slavery as well as the brutal treatment of black men, women, and children could be justified in a democracy founded on equal rights for all.

2.3 Stereotyping after Slavery: Reconstructing Apartheid

Slavery ended with the defeat of the Confederate States and the end of the Civil War.

In 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment officially abolished slavery in the United States but contained the loophole of enslavement as a penalty for crimes: “Neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction”

(“U.S. Constitution”). This loophole meant to maintain the black workforce for white plantations, which the black codes ensured. Former black slaves were criminalized for minor offenses such as vagrancy or even for being without a work contract, and thus legally enslaved as a penalty for their crimes. This legal enslavement of criminals introduced the notion of criminalizing free African Americans in order to dominate them and continue profiting from their (free) labor. The fact that mass incarceration and private prisons exist in the US proves how relevant and influential the criminality clause has been until today

(Alexander 28).

After the end of slavery in 1865, former black slaves gained citizenship as well as voting rights in this era of Reconstruction. However, this time was only a temporary success story of black Americans. There was a severe backlash against the political and social gains of

African Americans from the side of Southern conservatives and poor whites. Their reasoning was both racial and economic: The Southern elites needed cheap (black) work force, and poor whites felt threatened by blacks competing on the labor market as well as in society at large.

Instead of forming a class alliance between poor whites and blacks against the elites, conservative elites directed the anger of poor whites towards African Americans and transformed the class hatred into racial hatred (Alexander 30-35). The product was the period of time called Jim Crow:

By the turn of the twentieth century, every state in the South had laws on the

books that disenfranchised blacks and discriminated against them in virtually

every sphere of life, lending sanction to a racial ostracism that extended to

schools, churches, housing, jobs, restrooms, hotels, restaurants, hospitals,

orphanages, prisons, funeral homes, morgues, and cemeteries. (Alexander 35)

Both before and during Jim Crow, stereotypes of African Americans played a major role in arguing for and justifying discrimination and segregation. The Sambo and Mammy stereotypes were still common in order to romanticize the past time of slavery and idealize the life on the plantation. In contrast, white elites used the stereotypes of the Zip Coon as well as the Jezebel and Sapphire to explain the alleged need for segregation. Formerly, the Zip Coon and Jezebel stereotypes had justified slavery as an institution. Black slaves allegedly had needed slavery as well as harsh punishments because of their inferior and flawed character.

After slavery, when blacks were officially free, these two stereotypes remained as important as they had been before. These were still widely known in post-slavery US society, and large parts of white society feared blacks even more due to their newly gained freedom. In the view of the majority of white society, the uncontrolled black community after the end of slavery was a major threat to their civilization (Franklin 101-103).

White elites played with this pervasive fear of black people, especially of African

American males. They widely presented black males as uncivilized and violent, often even as rapists. The goal of representing black males as vicious rapists was to appeal to “the 'Big

Black Man' syndrome” of white people (Armour 263). White conservatives expressed their

(alleged) fear of brutal black men raping their innocent white daughters. This has been an extremely powerful image until today, despite the fact that white supremacy is responsible for raping uncountable black women during slavery. Large parts of white society approved of white slave owners raping their female property. This racialization of sexuality was highly

efficient in creating an environment, which ostracized miscegenation and favored segregating oneself from the dangerous and vicious black people, men and women alike.

Another effect of these stereotypes was the widely-accepted ritual killing of African

Americans or lynching. Lynching was a practice, which involved an enraged mass of (white) people carrying out acts of violence on one or a few black individuals. Commonly, lynching was an act of retribution or vigilante justice, which courts rarely prosecuted. White mobs alleged black people of having committed a crime, especially “murder or rape” (Stampp 34).

These – real or imagined – violations led the mob to rage against the alleged black perpetrator. Anyone – criminal or not – could be drawn into becoming a victim in a lynching.

The mob hung up their victims on trees in order to symbolize and ritualize the act of killing and terrify other black people. They regarded their acts of violence as restoring the order of white supremacy and subjugation of black people. For this reason, they thought their lynching to be justified (Stampp 34). Courts tended not to prosecute individuals involved in lynchings as large parts of white society, including police, approved of this practice. In these ways, the stereotypes, which had already been in use in slavery, affected black people and justified legal discrimination as well as violence against African Americans until the 1960s.

2.4 The Civil Rights Movement and the End of Overtly Racist Stereotyping

In the 1950s and 1960s, Jim Crow laws started to be questioned. The legal case Brown v. Board of Education “signaled the end of ‘home rule’ in the South with respect to racial affairs” (Alexander 36). Due to the Supreme Court decision mentioned above, segregated schools were no longer legal and, therefore, had to be desegregated. With this glimmer of hope, civil rights leaders and activists challenged the overtly racist laws by marching through the streets, performing sit-in protests and boycotting segregated buses and diners. These vast protests resulted in mass incarceration costing the states millions of dollars. The Civil Rights

Movement culminated in the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which “formally

dismantled the Jim Crow system of discrimination in public accommodations, employment, voting, education, and federally financed activities” (Alexander 38), and the Voting Rights

Act of 1965.

Besides the undoubtedly positive results for African Americans, the Civil Rights

Movement also changed the racial dynamics in the US. When before overtly racist language was even included in texts of law, in post-Civil Rights America this kind of language was banned from the surface of US society. The Jim Crow Era had ended and was succeeded by the Era of Color Blindness (Bonilla-Silva 2010, 2). The color of one’s skin should not determine about one’s success or failure any more. The American Dream had finally opened up to all people, including African Americans. This also meant that the racial stereotypes, which were so popular and constitutive for defining African Americans, could no longer be disseminated so openly and successfully. Of course, racial stereotypes did not become extinct in the 1960s, and the same is true for racists, white supremacy, and the subordination of black people. However, the level and strategies of racism and discrimination changed together with the law. Since racial discrimination was outlawed in the 1960s, it could not occur any more – at least not openly: “A new race-neutral language was developed for appealing to old racist sentiments, a language accompanied by a political movement that succeeded in putting the vast majority of blacks back in their place” (Alexander 40).

The Civil Rights Movement had changed the law regarding race so drastically and abruptly that society could not possibly keep up. White schools refusing to desegregate were only one example. In general, Euro American society saw the Civil Rights Movement as a threat to the long-standing social order, which it correctly was. It challenged the racial order, which had structured American society and culture for over two centuries. Especially whites regarded the protests with strong restraint at best because they questioned their white supremacy. Numerous whites equated peaceful protest with criminal behavior: “Southern

governors and law enforcement officials often characterized these tactics as criminal and argued that the rise of the Civil Rights Movement was indicative of a breakdown of law and order” (Alexander 40). Viewing and treating peaceful protesters as criminals laid the foundation for the new tactics of subjugating African Americans in a time that outlawed overt racial discrimination. Authorities declared African Americans as criminals. White conservatives first used this strategy at the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement, but it has remained in use until this day. A perfect example that this strategy is still in effect is how parts of the media and elected officials portray and perceive Black Lives Matter protesters.

They commonly equate these peaceful protesters with rioters and criminals.

2.5 The War on Drugs: The Stereotype of the Black Criminal

After the Civil Rights Era, white conservatives had to change their tone regarding race as federal law forbid racial discrimination. African Americans could no longer be declared inferior because of their race. However, conservatives realized that the law and order rhetoric used by Southern politicians when handling protests resonated with whites, who saw their order being disrupted by blacks fighting for equality. That is why conservative politicians linked the peaceful protesters to criminals and rioters violating the (racial) law. The riots in

Harlem and Rochester in 1964 played into this strategy (Alexander 41).

In this period, one of the most drastic political shifts in America took place. Until the

1960s, the Democrats were the major party in the South, while the Republicans dominated in the North. This situation changed abruptly when Democrats started supporting the Civil

Rights Movement. The white working class was upset because they felt betrayed by their elected politicians. Conservative Republicans realized this potential of winning over former

Democratic voters by appealing to racial resentments of whites in the South. Conservative

Republicans believed this so-called Southern Strategy “could point the way toward long-term political realignment and the building of a new Republican majority, if Republicans continued

to campaign primarily on the basis of racial issues, using coded antiblack rhetoric”

(Alexander 44-45).

The coded anti-black rhetoric drew a direct line from African American culture to poverty and crime. Instead of blaming African Americans’ race for being poor and criminal, conservatives explained blacks’ status at the bottom of the social order by referring to black culture. It is no surprise that “[b]lack ‘welfare cheats’ and their dangerous offspring emerged, for the first time, in the political discourse and media imagery” in the early 1970s (Alexander

45). Interestingly, conservative Republicans as well as the electorate they reached out to seem to forget the centuries of oppression and subjugation by white supremacist US society, which were responsible for blacks’ low status in US society: indentured servitude in the 18th century, slavery until the 1860s, and Jim Crow laws until the 1960s. For the white working class in the

South, racial resentments and the fear of socially emerging black people overshadowed these historical facts responsible for the misery of black people.

Linking African Americans to crime and welfare played a major role in the political discourse well into the 1980s. With Ronald Reagan being President in the 1980s, this rhetoric was taken to a new level. He blamed “welfare queens” and criminal “predators” for problems in America’s biggest cities, which appealed especially to the white working class. Reagan’s solution was the War on Drugs:

In October 1982, President Reagan officially announced his administration’s

War on Drugs. At the time he declared this new war, less than 2 percent of the

American public viewed drugs as the most important issue facing the nation.

This fact was no deterrent to Reagan, for the drug war from the outset had little

to do with public concern about drugs and much to do with public concern

about race. By waging war on drug users and dealers, Reagan made good on

his promise to crack down on the racially defined ‘others’ – the undeserving.

(Alexander 49)

These ‘others’ were predominantly black families living in segregated parts of

America’s cities such as the South Side of Chicago and West Baltimore. Conservative politicians characterized them as dangerous criminals without any possibility of change. The image of the black criminal is directly connected to the Zip Coon stereotype. As black males were American citizens and therefore (theoretically) possessing all rights, privileges and duties, conservatives needed to show that black males were unfit of living in freedom and equality. That is why they explained African American’s poor conditions in US society with their deficient and criminal black culture. For this purpose, they transformed the Zip Coon stereotype into the stereotype of the ‘thug’ or “criminalblackman” (Alexander 162). This distorted portrayal of black men “constructs black men as 'failures' who are psychologically

‘fucked up,’ dangerous, violent, sex maniacs whose insanity is informed by their inability to fulfill their phallocentric masculine destiny in a racist context” (Hooks 2007, 89).

Photographer Joel Parés used the image of the modern day version of the Zip Coon in a photo series that challenges common stereotypes. In this picture, Parés photographed an

African American Harvard graduate dressed as a gangster, the modern Zip Coon:

As can be seen in the image above, the stereotype of the criminal black man presents black males as a menace. There are various features, which refer to the old Zip Coon stereotype from slavery. The clothing is loud and exaggerated, and only adapted to modern fashion. Both wear heavy jewelry, especially necklaces. Whereas the Zip Coon, however, was feminized and resembled elegant upper-class whites, the thug is over-masculinized and lower class. The reason for this lies in the differing purposes of the two stereotypes. The Zip Coon was a comic way of rendering free black males ridiculous; their appearance as well as their attitude were false, only a make-believe version of a civilized white man such as a woman dressed as a man. The whole purpose was to show that black men could never assimilate successfully into white civilization. In contrast, the thug stereotype attempts to represent the real nature of the free and equal African American male, according to white society: poor and dangerous. Both, the thug and the Zip Coon are/were not fit for (white) civilization; the difference, however, is that white society does not control African Americans as effectively as it used to in slavery and Jim Crow anymore because of the Civil Rights Act. For this reason, white society

perceived the uncontrolled vicious African American male as a menace: that is a dangerous, brutish predator rejecting all attempts of civilized society to change and control him.

Therefore, civilized white society – led by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s – had to wage war against these thugs or predators to prevent them from corrupting or destroying white civilization with their newly earned equal legal status in US society.

Although Reagan identified drugs as America’s greatest threat, drugs did not account for a severe problem during his presidency, even before declaring the War on Drugs. In fact, drugs started playing a role due to the War on Drugs. In the 1980s, globalization and deindustrialization dramatically changed the work situation in the US. The effect was that low skill work was moved abroad, rendering black communities in American cities jobless.

Because black communities faced serious problems on the job market, one part recognized the potential of selling drugs, especially crack cocaine, in order to survive economically. Instead of helping these communities by providing legal job opportunities, the Reagan administration decided to prosecute drug offenders vigorously. In 1986, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act was passed, which catapulted the US to be the strictest country on drugs in the world. It allowed evicting drug offenders from public housing premises, eliminating federal benefits, it expanded the death penalty for serious drug offenses, and established new mandatory minimums for drug offenses. These policies led to mass incarceration of mostly black and brown people (Alexander 50-51).

The War on Drugs would not have been so efficient in destroying black communities without the enormous help by mass media. The Reagan administration needed media campaigns to support and justify its War on Drugs as drugs had not accounted for a significant problem before:

Thousands of stories about the crack crisis flooded the airwaves and

newsstands, and the stories had a clear racial subtext. The articles typically

featured black ‘crack whores,’ ‘crack babies,’ and ‘gangbangers,’ reinforcing

already prevalent racial stereotypes of black women as irresponsible, selfish

‘welfare queens,’ and black men as ‘predators’ – part of an inferior and

criminal subculture. (Alexander 52)

These media campaigns were so powerful that society and police forces seemed to ignore that drug offenses were problems faced by African Americans and Euro Americans alike. There are numerous studies (for example, Meier 1994, and Reeves and Campbell 1994), which clearly reveal how “the media frame shifted dramatically from white, suburban drug users in need of therapy to riveting images of violent black drug offenders in the inner city who were beyond the point of rehabilitation” (Hurwitz, Jon and Mark Peffley 395). This clearly shows how mass media constructed and disseminated the stereotype of the black drug offender and criminal in order to justify the War on Drugs, a war that targeted predominantly African

Americans and other minorities.

2.6 The Clintons Fighting Super-predators

At first, the plan to win over the white electorate by appealing to racial resentments used to be a Republican plan. Due to its success – as proven by the Nixon, Reagan, and Bush presidencies – Democrats joined the popular movement of “getting tough on crime.” In 1992,

Bill Clinton declared that he was tougher on crime than any Republican, which turned out to be true. He introduced the “one strike and you’re out” law, which cut even more federal benefits for drug offenders. The effect of Clinton’s crime bill was that incarceration rates exploded, combined with costs for prisons and police forces. Most strikingly, the stricter laws disproportionately affected communities of color, especially African Americans. From the more than 2 million people imprisoned at the end of Bill Clinton’s two terms as president,

“[n]inety percent of those admitted to prison for drug offenses in many states were black or

Latino, yet the mass incarceration of communities of color was explained in race-neutral

terms, an adaptation to the needs and demands of the current political climate” (Alexander

58).

The question remains how the War on Drugs specifically affected African Americans and other minority groups. It can only be answered when taking into account the early media campaigns, which sought to justify the War on Drugs, as well as the rhetoric in the following years. As already mentioned, drugs were largely reported to be a black problem, although both African Americans and Euro Americans sold and used them in similar dimensions. Both sold them in their social environments: white college students on campus, young black males in their neighborhood (Alexander 99-100). Although (white) college students taking drugs is as well-known a stereotype as black drug offenders, the former are rarely arrested for it.

Crime stories in the media are hardly ever about white college students being arrested for selling or using drugs, even though it is as much a cliché as drugs in a ghetto. The significant difference is that drug offenses are racialized: “a public consensus was constructed by political and media elites that drug crime is black and brown” (Alexander 107). Media campaigns, which targeted poor black communities, accomplished this racialization.

Additionally, politicians demonstrated how tough on crime they were in their speeches and policies, which further affected black communities. One famous example, which has recently received high media attention, is that of then-First Lady Hillary Clinton speaking on crime and youths in inner-cities: “It’s not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called super-predators: no conscience, no empathy. We can talk about how they ended up that way but first we must bring them to heel” (C-SPAN). Speeches like these used coded anti-black rhetoric, which connected crime and African American youths. Clinton used the thug stereotype to refer to African American males as killing machines without conscience and empathy. In this way, the Clinton administration – similar to the administrations before – attempted to justify huge investments into law enforcement and

prisons as well as intensive policing of black communities. At the same time, this administration reinforced the distorted image of the black drug offender and criminal.

2.7 The Gangsta: A Liberating and Oppressing Stereotype

At the same time Ronald Reagan’s War on Drugs and the vastly emerging media stories about black criminals showed its consequences in the late 1980s, African American youths expressed their changed situation through a new sub-culture: gangsta rap. One of the earliest examples is Ice Cube’s “Boyz-N-The Hood,” which “became an anthem for the fatherless, brotherless, state-assaulted, heavily armed West Coast urban youth […]. The impact of ‘Boyz’ had to do with its affirmation, its boast: ‘We’re taking over now’” (Chang

306). The last line underlines how pivotal the role of power was in the emergence of gangsta culture. This culture was a means to re-claim power by black youth, but it also submitted to the power of white patriarchal capitalism. On the one hand, gangsta culture was a way of

“embracing one’s stigma as a coping strategy” (Alexander 171). The Reagan administration identified African Americans as risks to the social order, and therefore mass media stigmatized them as criminals. Instead of fighting (unsuccessfully) against this stigmatization, black youths emphasized their allegedly criminal black culture. If mass media presented black youths as dangerous criminals, black youths would behave, sing, and dress accordingly. They tried to transform the stigma into pride: “It was only through their loud rudeness that they might feel any sense of security and power” (Coates 2015, 22).

On the other hand, gangsta culture reinforced racial and gender stereotypes, and capitalism: “It is a for-profit display of the worst racial stereotypes and images associated with the era of mass incarceration – an era in which black people are criminalized and portrayed as out-of-control, shameless, violent, oversexed, and generally undeserving”

(Alexander 173). This representation is particularly harmful to African American women, who black males commonly subjugate in gangsta culture. Bell Hooks identifies that the reason

for this black youths’ violent and misogynistic behavior lies in white patriarchal society. In white mainstream society, there is a long tradition of aggressive interpretations of manhood.

Dominating over women is one of its main aspects despite the gains of and for women until today. Black men simply grasp these values in order to gain some form of power in oppressive white society. It is clear that problematic values linked with gangsta culture are by no means only values of black culture (2007, 111). In fact, the main audience of black rappers is white and suburban (Alexander 173-175). This means that values spread by gangsta culture are not a black problem. Therefore, solely criticizing black youths for reinforcing these stereotypes is shortsighted and wrong.

Similar to rap music, white youths assume the dress code of gangsta rappers, the effect being that both black and white youths wear similar fashion items such as baseball caps, hoodies, and saggy pants. However, these items are only related to the thug stereotype if the person wearing them is black. The Trayvon Martin case highlights the connection of clothing choice, race, and criminality. In February 2012, the self-declared neighborhood watch George

Zimmerman killed the unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin. The fact that Trayvon Martin was wearing a hoodie, because of which George Zimmerman felt threatened, started a discussion about this fashion item. Famous journalists of Fox News questioned Martin’s fashion choice, and thus attempted to explain and legitimate his killing. They even advised black youths not to wear hoodies any more. Fox’s Geraldo Rivera contributed the following to the debate: “I am urging the parents of black and Latino youngsters, particularly, to not let their young children go out wearing hoodies. I think the hoodie is as much responsible for

Trayvon Martin’s death as George Zimmerman was” (Wemple). His colleague Fox News host

Bill O’Reilly tried to explain Trayvon Martin’s death by blaming the thug stereotype when discussing the case with African American pundit Allan West:

It’s a bit complicated because the reason Trayvon Martin died was because he

looked a certain way and it wasn’t based on skin color. If Trayvon Martin had

been wearing a jacket like you are and a tie like you are, Mr. West, this

evening, I don’t think George Zimmerman would have any problem. But he

was wearing a hoodie and he looked a certain way. And that way is how

‘gangstas’ look. And, therefore, he got attention. And the reason that that

culture has risen is because there are a lot of gangs. And they’re violent and

they dress a certain way. And when people see that, they associate that kind of

bad conduct. (Wemple)

Both journalists – same as numerous others – blamed Trayvon Martin’s fashion choice for his death; George Zimmerman’s fear appears legitimate because he must have assumed a dangerous gangsta or thug in front of him. In fact, Rivera and O’Reilly are right in their explanation insofar as they identified “clothing choices as forms of communication” (Jeffers

130). The hoodie is attributed with meaning, similar to saggy pants: these items may signify laziness, casualness, and even freedom from more repressive dress codes. Unlike O’Reilly, however, Rivera addresses the crux of the matter: race. As misplaced and problematic his advice of avoiding hoodies certainly is, he advises only parents of color to do so because he realizes that hoodies pose no threat to young white males. It is the black body wearing the hoodie, which is coded as dangerous and threatening. That is why O’Reilly is completely wrong when he claims that skin color had nothing to do with Martin’s death. Trayvon

Martin’s appearance – that is both his skin color and his fashion choice – had the effect that

“Zimmerman and the police dispatcher collaborated in imposing a 'virtual identity' on

Trayvon Martin” (Hart 99). They did not see and interact with Trayvon Martin as an individual but with his appearance, representing the thug stereotype.

In this way, the killing seems understandable to some, and blaming gangsta culture appears justified. Law scholar Jody D. Armour explains this with the concept of the

“[r]easonable Racist” (264), who should not be blamed for killing a person of color because – according to the widely spread thug stereotype – black people are inherently violent.

Therefore, it appears reasonable to most Americans to assume violent behavior and danger when seeing a black man, and violence and killing appear justified. This is exactly what happened with Trayvon Martin. He matched the stereotypical description of the thug, which legitimately justified his killing for numerous people because he seemed threatening to them.

The entire justification, however, relies upon a racist stereotype with little reference to reality, which was deliberately created to control black bodies.

2.8 The Power of Stereotypes regarding Crime and Policing

The stereotype of the black criminal is so widely spread that racial attitudes significantly influence how people think about crime. In a study conducted by political science scholars Jon Hurwitz and Mark Peffley in 1997, it was shown that there is a link between race and crime when the case accounts for a black crime – that is drug offenses and violent crimes:

Only when crimes are violent and when policies are punitive are negative

stereotypes substantially more likely to see blacks as guilty of crimes (in the

Race and Crime Experiment), to envision more crimes in the future (in the

Race and Crime, Carjack, Furlough, and Rehabilitation Experiments), and to

favor harsher punishments (in the Carjack and Furlough Experiments). (394)

Another example is a survey from 1995 published in the Journal of Alcohol and Drug

Education. Participants were asked to envision a drug user and describe the person. The results of the survey showed that 95 percent of participants envisioned a black drug user and

only 5 percent other racial groups despite the fact that whites and blacks sell and use drugs equally often (Burston, Jones, and Robertson-Saunders 19).

Since African American males are commonly considered criminals by large parts of

US society, especially law enforcement has focused on black neighborhoods as main sites for policing drug use and trafficking. This has been particularly easy because American cities are highly segregated, which is directly linked to the housing policies during Jim Crow. Due to these policies, racialized neighborhoods such as the South Side of Chicago, the North Side of

Philadelphia, and West Baltimore formed all over the country (Coates 2015, 20). These neighborhoods are consistently non-white. In this way, Jim Crow laws created two worlds –

American suburbia and non-white neighborhoods; the same red line that separated the worlds up until the 1960s still exists today. It is then only when police force enters the African

American world that the two worlds come together (Coates 2015, 20). As police operate mostly in African American neighborhoods when it comes to drugs, Euro American neighborhoods, in particular white middle and working class, know about these operations only from news stories or other forms of media representation. This is particularly problematic when taking into account that news stories that show drugs as a black problem were deliberately created in order to justify the War on Drugs (Alexander 58). In this way, the popular image of the black drug offender has come to justify police operations in black neighborhoods with great support of the misinformed white population.

As discussed above, police operations in diverse cities mainly take place in black neighborhoods. Interestingly, these operations are commonly not caused by calls of black residents, but particularly drug-law enforcement enters black neighborhoods and chooses whom to search randomly (Alexander 104-105). Random searches, however, are prohibited by the US constitution, in particular the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and

effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and

no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or

affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the

persons or things to be seized. (“U.S. Constitution”)

According to Alexander, police use minor offenses such as traffic violations as a pretext to search African Americans for drugs. In this way, police can always justify searches although they may seem unreasonable. The effect is that African Americans know that they can be stopped and searched at any time (104-105). A recent investigation in Baltimore revealed how police systemically stop-and-frisk African Americans, which stands in conflict with the US constitution:

It found that over a five-year period, African Americans accounted for 95% of

people stopped by police more than 10 times. One African American man,

according to the report, was stopped 30 times in less than four years. ‘Despite

these repeated intrusions, none of the 30 stops resulted in a citation or criminal

charge,’ the report states. (Woods)

Baltimore may only be one of numerous other examples when taking into account that most

American cities are similarly highly segregated.

Since African Americans are likely to be stopped and searched, they have begun expecting such actions by police. Alexander claims that deference, which used to be an integral element of white supremacy during slavery and Jim Crow, has returned in a new form. Today, African Americans expect and accept the stops and searches by police as an act of violent subordination to white supremacy (136). This ritual can easily be compared to

African Americans’ duty to offer their seat to white Americans on the bus during Jim Crow.

The stop-and-frisk policy functions as a means to control and subjugate African Americans on

a daily basis. However, it would be too short-sighted to only blame law enforcement: “The truth is that the police reflect America in all of its will and fear, and whatever we might make of this country’s criminal justice policy, it cannot be said that it was imposed by a repressive minority” (Coates 2015, 79). In this way, law enforcement does exactly what (white) society expects of it: controlling supposedly violent and criminal African Americans, the thugs and gangstas, in their own neighborhoods, the ghettos and hoods.

3. Hollywood and Race

The significance of Hollywood for race becomes evident when considering the process of identity building in times of mass media. Film scholar Vincent F. Rocchio explains the relationship between the individual, society, and race:

[I]dentity is the result of a complex and dialectical relationship between the

real conditions of the individual body and environment, the social-symbolic

system that it is situated within, and the individual’s own dynamic history at

the juncture of the two. The social-symbolic system thus exercises an

enormous role in the construction and maintenance of identity, and this has

significant implications for the operation of race. (18)

He points out the significance of the social-symbolic system, which includes various factors of a society and culture such as media and other social institutions. In this way, social institutions decide on the meaning of symbols in a society, which influences identity building of individuals. Various social institutions (government, media, law enforcement and others), for example, construct what being black in US society means; this specific construction of this race, then, plays a role in the process of identity building in a black individual. It becomes clear that the social-symbolic system exercises great power on the individual’s identity.

Next to news media, Hollywood accounts for one of the most powerful cornerstones of mass media because it reaches audiences all over the globe. In the context of the War on

Drugs, Alexander claims that “[l]aw enforcement officials, no less than the rest of us, have been exposed to the racially charged political rhetoric and media imagery associated with the drug war” (106). The racially charged political rhetoric includes common terms to refer to drug offenders and criminals such as “predators” and “thugs.” Besides news stories about black drug offenders, Hollywood has played a pivotal role in establishing and spreading the stereotype of the black criminal. Black feminist scholar Bell Hooks considers mass media, including Hollywood movies, the “most powerful covert teacher of white supremacy” (2013,

13).

In its early years, Hollywood used to be under the influence of government in terms of film content, so it is understandable why Hollywood did not explicitly criticize government policies with its movies in the past (Giglio 208). Since government does not control

Hollywood regarding film content anymore, only filmmakers and their sponsors are responsible for the content of their movies. In other words, the “artistic freedom enables directors to select their subject matter and present events to suit their personal interpretations”

(Giglio 11). As will be shown in the following analysis, the majority of movies by Euro-

American directors does not question problematic stereotypes but rather reinforces them.

There are, however, directors who use their artistic freedom in order to challenge mainstream ideas and concepts with their films. These directors are mostly non-white, albeit not exclusively. Film scholar and political scientist Ernest Giglio mentions several directors such as Costas-Gravas, Oliver Stone, and Spike Lee who “risk box office failure by exploiting the medium for political purposes” (11). For this paper, African American director Spike Lee is the most interesting of the three mentioned because he focuses on issues relevant to the

African American community in his movies. Examples are Do the Right Thing (1989), which

deals with tensions among ethnicities and races in New York City, Bamboozled (2000), and

Chi-Raq (2015) that will be part of the analysis in this paper.

In theory, Hollywood directors can create movies to their own liking with little interference from authorities such as the government. The remaining question is why there are so few Hollywood movies tackling pressing social issues such as uncountable incidents of police brutality, without solely reinforcing existing stereotypes of black criminals. This is particularly troubling at a time when filmmakers are free to choose their subjects, and when police killings of African Americans are ubiquitous in America’s biggest cities. Giglio answers this question by referring to the fact that Hollywood is an industry, which prefers profits to social causes: “As an industry, Hollywood religiously adhered to the popular maxim that you never bite the hand that feeds you” (212). The key to Hollywood’s monopoly on film production in the US lies in satisfying its sponsors’ and audience’s interests and beliefs.

Consequently, criticizing police brutality or the War on Drugs at large, which is approved of by large parts of (Euro-) Americans, would mean dissatisfying large parts of Hollywood’s audience and sponsors. This audience but even more so Hollywood’s elite is predominantly white – that is 84 per cent (Harwell) – which greatly influences what Hollywood films look like and who appears in them. This lack of diversity also includes other parts of Hollywood:

“About 87 percent of lead actors, 87 percent of directors and 92 percent of writers for the top

163 films of 2014 were white, according to an analysis by UCLA’s Ralph J. Bunche Center for African American Studies” (Harwell). It goes so far that even if movies called for lead actors of color because of their story and/or setting, Euro American actors were casted. This tradition stretches from John Wayne as Mongolian Genghis Khan in The Conqueror (1956) and Mickey Rooney as a Japanese in Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961) to Emma Stone playing a mixed-raced woman in Aloha (2015) (“Whitewashing. A Long History”). This fact led to protests and boycotts before the Academy Awards in 2016 because particularly actors of color

decried the lack of actors and actresses as well as directors and writers of color among nominees. In conclusion, Hollywood accounts for a predominantly male and white industry, which does not desire writers, directors, and casts to be diverse, partly out of fear that producing more diverse or even critical movies might not attract masses of (Euro-)

Americans; thus these films might be less profitable. That is why most Hollywood films are purely commercial products reflecting white superiority but “there exists a small minority of films, five to ten percent, that present explicit, and often latent, political messages” (Giglio 4).

This minority of films are classified as political films. Giglio highlights that it is difficult to define what political films are as well as to classify films as clearly political.

Therefore, he proposes a solution, which takes into account intent and effect of a film.

According to him, both intent and effect of a film have to be political for a film to be deemed political (25). Political Hollywood films are not only exceptional because there are so few but also because “the medium has the capacity to influence attitudes and beliefs through the rearrangements of realities that either reinforce or reject current political values” (Giglio 209).

This capacity seems even greater when taking Hollywood’s status in contemporary globalized culture into account. Hollywood movies attract a worldwide audience, and thus they have the capacity to influence audiences beyond the US market. In practice, Hollywood filmmakers tend to avoid controversial subjects due to financial reasoning. That is why the few political films that deal with controversial subjects are highly acclaimed and widely celebrated for their bravery in taking economic risks. In fact, however, “these social message films led audiences to believe that anti-Semitism, racism, prejudice, and intolerance were personal defects of the film characters rather than symbolic flaws within the American character” (Giglio 212). In this way, these political movies tend to individualize social issues, and thus they reinforce current political, social, and cultural values rather than reject them when dealing with controversial subjects.

Moreover, Giglio’s definition of political film is problematic because it neglects that every film – even if its primary intent and effect is apolitical – has an inherent ideological and/or political message. Giglio claims that this view “is too inclusive; if every Hollywood film delivers a political message the film studios would have had to file for bankruptcy given their usual weak showing at the box office” (22). However, he appears to ignore the fact that due to financial reasons, Hollywood movies tend to carry politically conservative messages; political messages do not need to be radical or extreme concepts and ideas, but also conservative or mainstream messages account for political messages. The latter may not be visible at first sight because they are part of the mainstream, and therefore appear natural and without a message. Unlike openly declared political films, all other films appear to be free from ideological and/or political messages, especially when they carry widely accepted mainstream ideas and concepts. In this way, viewers of these films do not expect political messages but politically neutral films – if those even exist. Therefore, these films might not have a thought-provoking political effect on its audience because the message appears too natural to be clearly visible. These movies are even more problematic because they bear ideologies and political contents hidden under the surface. These seemingly invisible ideological messages are mainstream concepts, which appear as factual representations of reality. One of the mainstream concepts, which is commonly regarded as natural fact, is the fallacious assumption that drugs are a black problem, and thus African Americans mostly commit drug crimes. As pointed out above, deliberate media campaigns created this assumption and the stereotype of the criminal African American. This stereotype is visible in innumerable films, whether political or apolitical in nature, and therefore is widely accepted as a factual representation. These movies contain this specific political message – drug crime is black or brown – without the majority of the audience being able to identify this message as a political one, especially because these movies are unlikely to be labeled or classified as political. 39

For a movie to disseminate problematic messages, it is not important what the director intended by creating the movie. Firstly, the audience may not know about the director’s intentions when watching the movie; then only the movie itself is creating meaning. Secondly, the directors’ intentions may differ from the effect of the movie. A good example to illustrate this is the film Birth of a Nation by director David Wark Griffith from 1915, which led to outrage in the African American community. Rocchio argues, “Griffith could not understand what the fuss was all about, and claimed it was a film about war and reconstruction, not about race. In other words, Griffith did not intend the film to be about race or even racist” (30).

More important than the director’s intent is how the filmic text creates meaning because

“meaning is the result of a relationship between signifiers as they are constructed through specific codes” (Rocchio 30). Signifiers account for certain elements within the film, e.g.

African American characters, which represent certain elements of reality; the signified relate to reality, e.g. African Americans. These signifiers are presented and organized by using filmic techniques such as framing in order to convey a certain message:

Precisely what is at stake in this specific organization of discourses and

symbols is the construction of a set of values that audiences recognize as their

own. At the same time, those values confer positive judgments and traits on

some characters, and negative ones on others. (Rocchio 20)

Directors may not intend a certain message or judgment of characters because – as in

Griffith’s case – his racial ideology is so strong and natural to him as well as to his main audience that they seemed to be unable to recognize it. What is important, however, is the effect of the film: Both, African Americans at the time as well as film scholars, clearly received the racist messages in Birth of a Nation.

Moreover, not every movie showing stereotypes is consequently problematic.

Stereotypes can be used in such a way as to criticize or ridicule them and those who use them.

Therefore, again, it is crucial how directors frame stereotypical representations and use them within the narrative of the film. A valid example is Spike Lee’s movie Bamboozled (2000), which uses the racist practice of blackface. Although blackface as such is problematic, it is not in this satirical movie. Lee uses the practice to show how ridiculous the creator of the modern-day minstrel show is in his aim to please his (white) audience in the movie. In this way, Lee exploits blackface and the minstrel show to criticize modern creators of TV shows, who produce problematic shows by uncritically depicting stereotypes.

Consequently, movies dealing with race and racism do not necessarily deserve praise and applause. These movies – such as Crash (2005) and numerous others – present racial issues and struggles but do so while still consolidating white supremacy. Besides Crash,

Rocchio claims that Alan Parker’s Mississippi Burning (1988) accounts for one of these films.

While Parker tells the story of the investigation by the FBI into the murders of three civil rights workers, it clearly misrepresents the Civil Rights Movement by focusing on white FBI agents, who – as the movie suggests – bring about the change. In fact, Euro Americans as well as the FBI opposed the Civil Rights Movement as they considered it a threat to the social order; more importantly, black protesters and activists were responsible for the major successes for African Americans. In this way, the movie naturalizes and justifies the social and racial order with white Americans at the top helping African Americans (117). Both films mentioned above – Bamboozled and Mississippi Burning – underline the fact that it is essential to analyze how certain elements are used rather than solely if those are used.

Therefore, Rocchio identifies the importance of this kind of analysis within the studies of race: “The ability to analyze the manner in which the text organizes its discourses and symbols into a particular set of values and ideological orientations is an important addition to the study of racism and representation that was missing in earlier studies” (20).

Besides framing, directors have various other filmic techniques in their repertoire to deliver messages to the audience. According to Rocchio, there are certain filmic techniques fundamental to mainstream Hollywood films, which directors use to disguise the power and influence of the dominant culture:

Such cinematic elements as continuity editing, three-point lighting, and staging

in depth, as well as nonimage elements such as sound fidelity and character-

centered, goal-oriented narrative, contribute to a very unobtrusive story-telling

system that seeks to convey its meanings without reference to its source. This

system is both shaped and valued by the goals and objectives of dominant

culture for its ability to function inconspicuously as a site for reducing the

structures and operations of privilege and inequity. (138)

As will be shown in this paper, particularly the classic character-centered and goal-oriented narrative of Hollywood movies suggests that one can overcome social and racial barriers by individual effort. An illustrative example is Gabriele Muccino’s biographical drama film The

Pursuit of Happyness (2006), which shows how its African American protagonist Chris

Gardner manages to escape poverty with hard work and perseverance. This focus on characters downplays and neglects powerful systems within culture and society, especially regarding to race and class. Instead, Hollywood directors create exceptional fictional narratives, in which characters can achieve whatever they want, and also select biographical stories, which feature exceptional individuals defying all oppressive systems and barriers (for example, Remember the Titans (2000), Ray (2004), The Social Network (2010), Steve Jobs

(2015) among numerous others). This message has serious impacts for African Americans as well as socially deprived people in general. If the message of mainstream Hollywood movies

– that there are only little social barriers hindering social advancement and that effort seems to equal success – were true, it would mean that lack of effort and laziness would be the only

reasons for the critical situation of poor people and people of color in US society. In fact, however, these filmic representations do not accurately reflect impoverished people’s situation but they help spread stereotypical images of lazy, poor (black) people. These and similar arguments are frequently put forward when talking about race and class in a color- blind society, which will be the topic of the next chapter.

4. Racism in “Obamerica” (Bonilla-Silva 2010, xvi)

As highlighted in the first chapter, the legal oppression of African Americans was abolished throughout the course of the Civil Rights Movement. In this way, blatant racism was outlawed and racists were ostracized in US society. This has led to the widely held belief that racism is a matter of the past, and that US society is essentially colorblind and post-racial.

The fact that everyone – no matter of what color, gender, and class – has the same constitutional rights supports this claim. What is more, the election of Barack Obama is largely considered another example of a color blind and even post-racial American society, especially by Euro Americans (Bonilla-Silva 2010, xiii). In this context, sociologist Eduardo

Bonilla-Silva claims that “[m]ost whites believe that if blacks and other minorities would just stop thinking about the past, work hard, and complain less (particularly about racial discrimination), then Americans of all hues could ‘all get along’” (2010, 1). Euro Americans blame minorities of taking advantage of their unjust treatment in the past in order to benefit from Euro Americans feeling guilty now. A common example is affirmative discrimination, which a large part of Euro Americans tends to criticize. In their opinion, Euro and African

Americans have the same chances anyway, so that favoring African Americans unjustly discriminates against Euro Americans.

It was already explained that racial inequality manifests itself in the overrepresentation of African Americans in US prisons due to the War on Drugs, but “[b]lacks and dark-skinned

racial minorities lag well behind whites in virtually every area of social life” such as in prosperity, income, education, and housing (Bonilla-Silva 2010, 2). Racial inequality is an undeniable fact in American society, even though racism and racial discrimination appear to be extinct and non-existing. Only regarding the criminal justice system – and ignoring all other issues for a moment –, this racial inequality becomes evident: The research group

Mapping Police Violence collects national data on police violence in order to show its impact on American communities. In 2015, which accounts for Obama’s seventh year in office,

“[p]olice departments disproportionately killed black people, who were 41% of victims despite being only 20% of the population living in these cities” (Mapping Police Violence).

The research group was also able to dismantle the argument that violent crime was responsible for police violence:

Over the past several years, police departments in high-crime cities such as

Detroit and Newark have consistently killed fewer people per population than

police departments in cities with much lower crime rates such as Austin,

Bakersfield, and Long Beach. (Mapping Police Violence)

It becomes clear that Obama’s election has not released America from racial discrimination, and that an African American president is not enough to transform US society into a color blind, post-racial society.

4.1 Color-Blind Racism in Practice

Bonilla-Silva claims that there is a new racial ideology, color-blind racism, prevailing in the US, which explains minorities’ status in American society without sounding blatantly racist:

This ideology, which acquired cohesiveness and dominance in the late 1960s,

explains contemporary racial inequality as the outcome of nonracial dynamics.

Whereas Jim Crow racism explained blacks’ social standing as the result of

their biological and moral inferiority, color-blind racism avoids such facile

arguments. Instead, whites rationalize minorities’ contemporary status as the

product of market dynamics, naturally occurring phenomena, and blacks’

imputed cultural limitations. (2010, 2)

Today, it is desirable to sound liberal and politically correct in mainstream circles of US society. Consequently, this means that being and sounding racist is undesirable and (to some extent) even illegal. However, racism and racial discrimination as well as white supremacy have prevailed without or with little official racists in the US. There are reinforced strategies, techniques, and narratives, which explain racial inequality while not sounding racist at first sight. These strategies, techniques, and narratives are commonly used, so that they are generally accepted as liberal and non-racist. In the following, I will cite several practical forms of color-blind racism by referring to Bonilla-Silva (2010) and Anderson et al with the aim to detect these strategies in Hollywood movies in the film analysis later on.

By conducting interviews, Bonilla-Silva detected four “frames or set paths for interpreting information,” with whose help people deal with race and racial relations in their personal lives (2010, 26). His findings are highly interesting and relevant for this paper as they show how “subtle, institutional, and apparently nonracial” color-blind racism works

(Bonilla-Silva, 3); moreover, these frames provide a useful methodology for a more thorough analysis of how race and racial relations are represented in Hollywood movies, which I will conduct later. In total, Bonilla-Silva reveals four frames: “abstract liberalism, naturalization, cultural racism, and minimization of racism” (2010, 26).

Abstract liberalism understands all people as equal, and therefore opposes measures that discriminate against one social group – even the majority group – such as affirmative discrimination does. According to abstract liberalism, individuals are responsible for their 45

actions, and therefore government should not intervene. In this way, African Americans (and other minorities) are responsible for their own social and cultural situation, and therefore it would be unreasonable and unfair to tackle racial inequality for the sake of equal opportunity and justice for all. Abstract liberalism is one way of explaining racial inequality in a seemingly reasonable and moral way, while neglecting that minorities are still implicitly discriminated against by private and public US institutions, which are mainly dominated by

Euro Americans. In Hollywood movies, for example, abstract liberalism plays a role in the design of narratives. These narratives are conventionally character-centered, which gives the impression that anything is possible with enough individual effort; institutions and systems do not greatly affect characters negatively or hinder their lives from becoming success stories.

Naturalization refers to Euro Americans’ view that racial phenomena such as segregation and the lack of interracial partnership are natural facts instead of social and cultural constructs. A central aspect of naturalization is the common practice of blaming the victim, “arguing that minorities’ standing is a product of their lack of effort, loose family organization, and inappropriate values” (Bonilla-Silva 2010, 40). Another form of blaming the victim is linked to the stereotype of the black criminal. In this context, there is the cultural but naturalized perception that African American men per se are suspicious and dangerous, and that therefore racial profiling and violence are justified. Jacqueline Anderson et al highlight that the risk African American men pose is culturally constructed; a cultural construct which is naturalized and conceived of by many Euro Americans as pure fact due to its distribution by mass media:

What is ignored is that when an African American man commits a crime, it

reflects on African Americans, but no matter how many white serial killers,

terrorists, murders of various sorts there are, this never leaves the public

thinking that white men are dangerous, monsters to be feared. (27)

An additional aspect of naturalization is claiming that racism is inherent in and natural to all humans. Euro Americans tend to project “racism or racial motivations onto blacks and other minorities as a way of avoiding responsibility and feeling good about themselves” (Bonilla-

Silva 2010, 64). If all social groups were prone to racism and racial motivations, minorities’ accusations of being discriminated against by Euro Americans would be unjustified, as they would constantly discriminate against other social groups themselves, especially against Euro

Americans. This line of argumentation ignores the fact that Euro Americans dominate virtually all areas of American society and culture, and thus their racism and racial motivations are often institutional and systemic. Additionally, Euro Americans established the social category of race in order to differentiate themselves from other races due to subjective features to begin with. They did this for the purpose of white supremacy: the goal was to dominate and oppress all other races. If parts of minorities were averse to Euro American culture, this would rather account for counteracting on-going oppression and cultural appropriation by dominant white culture. In Hollywood movies, naturalization is used when racial stereotypes are carelessly presented, thus reinforcing the alleged natural status of racial stereotypes.

Cultural racism attributes (negative) characteristics and attitudes of racial and ethnic groups – mostly culturally constructed stereotypes – to their respective cultures instead of their biological race, which whites especially used to justify slavery and Jim Crow laws.

White supremacists claim that the respective cultures of minorities are deficient rather than their genes. In this sense, minorities’ situation in society is nowadays explained by referring to their alleged cultural behaviors and values such as “Mexicans do not put much emphasis on education” or “blacks have too many babies” (Bonilla-Silva 2010, 28); in slavery and Jim

Crow, African Americans were said to have cognitive and emotional disabilities due to their genes. As this would sound blatantly racist today, biological reasons have been transformed to

cultural reasons when explaining minorities’ status in society in order to disguise racist explanations as reasonable cultural facts. Cultural racism neglects the fact that US policies have greatly affected minority cultures – both today and in the past. These policies include all aspects of minorities’ lives such as housing, education, criminal justice, and health. Therefore, minority cultures can only exist within and in negotiation with the dominant culture, not completely apart from it. In Hollywood movies, cultural racism is visible especially when

Euro American directors create a movie about minority cultures; these movies frequently relate minority cultures to poverty, crime, and unemployment.

Minimization of racism means that racism does not play a role anymore for minorities’ lives in post-racial America. Usually Euro Americans stress that the situation for African

Americans has improved significantly since the 1960’s, and that US society provides everyone with the same chances today. Minimizing racism also involves neglecting the existence of institutional racism by foregrounding individual reasons for racist actions of Euro

Americans such as violence against African Americans. In the context of the fatal shooting of

African American Trayvon Martin by white George Zimmerman, Anderson et al reveal this common strategy of white supremacy:

Overall, the move is to decontextualize any situation and regard everything

that happens that might be called racist on individual terms, portray it as the

individual actions of two people not complexly related, unrelated in or by U.S.

racial and immigration history in this post-racial age. Then each “incident” can

be understood as an anomaly and hence is not relevant to the body politic. (30-

31)

While the white perpetrator is victimized, the African American victim is blamed; in the case of Trayvon Martin, Martin was blamed for looking suspicious, wearing a hoody as well as for defending himself against armed George Zimmerman. Criminal prosecutors investigated if 48

Martin was involved in any gang connections, and he was tested for drugs and alcohol, while

George Zimmerman was not tested (Anderson et al 30). While Euro Americans’ actions are regarded as individual ones, and good intentions are assumed, African Americans’ actions reflect on their entire racial group, which is widely viewed negatively. What is more, their being black already indicates danger and a risk for Euro Americans and thus being black justifies thorough police surveillance. There is generally no benefit of the doubt for black people. In this way, “racism disappears while white domination remains unscathed and the white worldview of superiority remains intact” (Anderson et al 31). In Hollywood movies, racism is minimized similarly to the Trayvon Martin shooting. White characters receive the focus and are individualized, while African American characters only interfere with white characters’ lives; they appear to not have a life of their own. So if a white character commits a crime, his individual life story explains his actions. In contrast, crimes committed by black characters cannot be explained in this way because their story is missing. Therefore, black crime refers to the African American community as a whole, and thus these movies reinforce the stereotype of the black criminal, who is naturally evil and violent.

5. Movie Analyses: How White and Black Directors Deal with Race

Before presenting the results of the analysis, there has to be room to comment on how the films were selected to be added to the corpus. The movies analyzed represent only a small part of all Hollywood and independent films produced in the last 25 years. The movies chosen were selected in order to exemplify how various Euro American and African American directors deal with race in their movies. In other words, the selected movies account for representative examples of films, which stand for a larger number of films featuring similar elements as the movies analyzed. For this analysis, only movies that overtly deal with race were chosen; this selection was further limited temporarily to movies since the start of the

War on Drugs in the late 1980s. The movies will not be analyzed entirely but rather relevant 49

categories will be formed by analyzing certain scenes of movies, while also considering how these scenes function in the movie as a whole. This strategy appears more fruitful as well as less repetitive. There is a clear separation between Euro American and African American directors since – as it became clear while watching and analyzing the movies – there seems to be a clear difference in the way white directors commonly deal with race than how their black colleagues do.

In the following critical analysis of movies, it will be shown how the directors construct and deal with blackness in the movies. As Bonilla-Silva argues, there is a racial grammar, which white-male-dominated society constructs and all other groups within this society learn. This racial grammar is subconscious and invisible, and therefore is highly efficient in creating the illusion that widely spread perspectives on whiteness and blackness are true and natural (2012, 1). Hollywood movies help spread this racial grammar as they teach culture to its audience with their filmic texts (Middleton 322).

5.1 Euro American Directors: Perpetrating the Modern Zip Coon Stereotype

5.1.1 The Black Supporting Cast in White America

It is common knowledge that minorities are underrepresented in Hollywood movies; the focus lies mostly on white characters. When minority characters appear in Hollywood movies, they are merely supporting the white hero in stereotypical roles such as drug abusers and criminals (Bonilla-Silva 2012, 6). Similarly, Bell Hooks claims that there are more people of color in today’s Hollywood movies, but there is “the same hierarchy of character development and placement” as in earlier movies (2013, 109). The movie analysis carried out for this paper supports this claim. Besides Lean on Me (1989) and Lakeview Terrace (2008),

Euro Americans play central roles in numerous movies considered, and minority characters – for this paper African Americans are particularly relevant – predominantly support the white

(male) heroes. Lean on Me is an exception because it deals with the real-life African 50

American principal Joe Clark, who introduces law and order tactics in a poor black school.

Lakeview Terrace features African American police officer Abel Turner, who terrorizes his white neighbors. Both movies do show African Americans as main characters, but they present them as violent, brutal, and crazy characters. Although at the center, these representations are as problematic and one-dimensional as the conventional roles for minorities as supporting cast.

Besides these two exceptions in terms of character placement, there exists a number of films in which black characters function as supporters and helpers of the (male) white hero.

As was established before, mainstream Hollywood movies are goal-oriented and character- centered. According to Hooks, a main character or hero is usually male and white, while minority characters are “props that hold up this hero, therefore sealing and normalizing a system of ideas and practices of white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. The hero becomes the

‘great white hope’ or savior” (2013, 99). Two valid examples for this theory are the films

American History X (1998) and Crash (2005).

Blacks in White American History X

British Tony Kaye directed American History X. It earned wide public praise and was even nominated for one Academy Award (Edward Norton for Best Actor). The film tells the story of the two white brothers Derek and Danny Vinyard, who sympathize with the Neo-Nazi movement. The brothers come from a white middle-class family, and both seem to have a bright future ahead of them. Their father’s death leads first Derek and later Danny to embrace racist ideas of white supremacy groups; Derek even becomes a gang leader. The whole story revolves around Derek’s family and his white friends. Although they despise all minorities, people of color seem to play a small role in their lives. There are only a handful of scenes featuring minorities: when two black teenagers attempt to steal Derek’s car and he shoots them, when Derek’s gang plays basketball against blacks, when the gang robs an Asian 51

grocery store, during Derek’s time in prison, and when a black teenager shoots Danny at the end. It becomes evident that although the movie is about racial relations in Los Angeles, racial minorities have little screen time.

In particular, African Americans represented in American History X function as mere props in the story about Euro Americans in white America in order to carry the narrative.

Black characters play major supporting roles at three pivotal stages in this movie: First, two

African Americans attempt to steal Derek’s car, which leads him to kill them and eventually gets him arrested. Secondly, African American character Lamont manages to change Derek and make him a better man by treating him kindly. Finally, an African American teenager kills Danny, who his improved brother was about to change. In conclusion, the African

American characters act exactly in accordance with the stereotype of the black criminal. They steal cars, kill and are killed on the streets, play basketball, and spend time in prison.

In addition to the stereotypical representation of African Americans in American

History X, there is no character development concerning African American characters – or any other minority character for that matter. They only matter in so far as that they can be of use to the narrative or the white characters. Stephen Hunter correctly highlights the problematic representation of African Americans in the film in his review for the Washington

Post: “it reflects a secret bigotry that sees black people only in terms of what they can do for white people, but has no other interest in them. And once Lamont has performed his miracle of healing, he disappears from the movie without a whisper.” In this way, American History X is a film about race, which uses minorities in their worst stereotypical representation; it fails to provide minority characters the same screen time and character development because colored lives, fates, and stories do not count in this movie. This message of white supremacy lies at the heart of American History X.

Blacks Crash into Whites in Multicultural Los Angeles

Canadian Paul Haggis directed Crash. The movie was widely acclaimed by its audience for representing racial and ethnic relations in contemporary Los Angeles. In 2005, it won the Academy Award for Best Picture. On the surface, Crash seems to be a realistic and balanced Hollywood representation of Los Angeles as it shows glimpses into various people’s lives. Bell Hooks highlights that although “Crash is a fiction film, it is shot as though it is a documentary. That is part of its seductive appeal” (2013, 123). The movie provides various perspectives on racial and ethnic relations in Los Angeles, which deems it multi-faceted, complex, and thus realistic. That is why not only its audience has celebrated Crash, but also scholars have frequently used the film “to engage in a public discourse about race. It seems on the surface to be transgressive just by openly talking about race and racism, but ultimately it’s a conservative discourse the public hears from the conservative right” (Hooks 2013, 115).

Although Crash appears progressive due to its fragmented narrative structure, it is a mainstream Hollywood movie: the main hero of the movie is a white male – police officer

John Ryan – while the African American characters – Cameron and Christine Thayer – function as props for his story. They help the white male hero prove his status (Hooks 2013,

99).

In Crash, numerous scenes are worth analyzing in terms of race and racial discrimination. Overall, African American characters function as supporting characters to their white counterparts. This is true for the two young black men Anthony and Peter, who help white characters come to revelatory moments in their lives on two different occasions: on the one hand, they confirm the existing stereotype of the black criminal for white Jean Cabot and her husband Rick when they car-jack the white couple. On the other hand, Peter is killed by white police officer Hansen in the end of the movie for allegedly drawing a gun. The formerly established liberal police officer – as he looks down on his racist colleague Officer

Ryan – realizes through Peter that African Americans are not to be trusted, no matter how liberal your own views are. Black people always pose a threat. Similar to the black characters in American History X, Anthony and Peter are only useful for the stories about white characters; their lives are worth showing only as far as they can drive the narrative forward and help white characters reach epiphanies. The fact that Anthony does not have a last name, and that his and Peter’s family situation and occupation are unclear, unlike all white characters’, supports this claim. Haggis presents them as only two of numerous other black criminals roaming the streets of Los Angeles and sometimes interfering with white people’s lives by robbing them or being killed by them.

Moreover, the African American couple is crucial for the main story in Crash, which revolves around Officer Ryan and his development from bad cop to celebrated hero. Cameron and Christine Thayer – who at least have names and lives of their own in the movie – are passive helpers for Ryan’s improvement. They meet twice in the movie: First, white police officers Ryan and Hansen stop the African American couple, and Officer Ryan ends up molesting Christine Thayer and demasculinizing her husband. Ryan can live out his (racial) frustration in this situation by acting out his power as a police officer. In this scene, Ryan is the perpetrator, the couple the victim. Finally, Ryan receives a second chance when Christine

Thayer has a car accident, and Ryan can save her from the burning vehicle. He seizes the opportunity of establishing himself as the hero of the movie. With the help of the two black characters, Ryan emerges as the hero. According to Hooks, Ryan’s development is more important than Christine’s safety: The rescue “springs not from a concern for her humanity but rather from his desperate need to prove he is worthy of the status of hero. It is his moment of glory. […] His sins are forgiven and he is allowed to continue his domination over others”

(2013, 101). Overall, it becomes evident that the African American characters in Crash

function only as helpers for the development of the white characters; Haggis focuses on and develops the white characters – Jean Cabot, John Ryan, and Tom Hansen – in Crash.

5.1.2 White Hope for Miserable Blacks

Besides the movies mentioned above, there are films that predominantly deal with problems of African Americans in African American neighborhoods and communities. It would appear reasonable if main characters or heroes in these movies were African

Americans, given the high level of segregation in the US. However, filmic representation greatly differs from reality: Whether revolving around (race) conflicts (Mississippi Burning, A

Time to Kill) or poverty (Dangerous Minds, The Blind Side) in African American communities, numerous Hollywood movies by Euro American directors feature white characters giving hope to and saving black characters from the (self-inflicted) misery in

African American communities.

First, the movies Mississippi Burning and A Time to Kill deal with race conflicts, in which Euro American characters play the main roles. In the former – as mentioned in a previous chapter – the Civil Rights Movement is represented as if the FBI, especially the two white agents Anderson and Ward, were responsible for its success and the positive outcomes for African Americans. A more realistic representation ought to show black characters in leading roles. The fact that white actors Gene Hackman and Willem Defoe star in the movie highlights how history is distorted when it is told from a white perspective. This perspective is not only historically wrong, but it also “reproduces the racial order of things” with Euro

Americans at the top and African Americans at the bottom (Bonilla-Silva 2012, 6).

According to this movie, African Americans depend on help by Euro Americans, which misrepresents them as a racial group as well as historical events in general.

Similarly, A Time to Kill deals with the rape of an African American girl by two white supremacists and her father’s revenge on them. The lawyer and his assistant, who help the 55

black father, are white and manage to fight for their black client and against the rigged (white) system in the South. Such as Mississippi Burning, this movie delivers the message that if

African Americans are drawn into difficult situations, their only hope are Euro Americans – who usually started the conflicts in the first place. Both movies wrongly support the clear racial hierarchy of white supremacy by claiming that African Americans are powerless, and therefore have to wait until the good white characters save them from the wrongdoings of the bad white people or the system at large. This claim neglects the power, agency, and resistance of African Americans against oppressive white systems since before slavery until today.

In a similar manner, white women manage to give hope to and save African American characters, particularly children and teenagers, from poverty and crime in African American neighborhoods in Dangerous Minds and The Blind Side. Both films are biographical dramas, which renders their messages more authentic and valid to audiences. In Dangerous Minds, white ex-marine LouAnne Johnson teaches a minority class in a low-budget high school, in which she attempts to help students escape crime and poverty. The movie suggests that these students are lucky because finally a white teacher tries to improve the school, while all other teachers are not able to or do not want to help students. It is not only problematic on the level of race: a white teacher shows minority students respect, order, and education or in other words, alleged Euro American values. What is more, the movie individualizes the problems underfunded schools face. Rather than a lack of individual effort, these schools are underfunded on the material and staff level. A contributing factor is that students come from impoverished families, in which (financial) survival trumps valuing education. When Johnson visits one of her students’ home because of their absence from school, she encounters the grandmother of the boys. Director John N. Smith (01:15:30) shows the grandmother in an over-the-shoulder close-up of her face, which highlights her angry and aggressive facial expressions.

This shot creates the illusion of seeing what Johnson sees. Further, she insults Johnson and makes clear that she appreciates neither Johnson’s curriculum nor her effort in general:

I saw what they were bringing home, poetry and shit. A waste of time. They

got more important things to worry about. […] I ain’t raisin’ no doctors and

lawyers here. They got bills to pay. Why don’t you just get outta here. Go find

yourself some other poor boys to save. (Smith 01:15:31-01:15:59)

Smith clearly designs this scene to raise negative attitudes towards the uncomprehending, aggressive black grandmother, while Johnson stands there passively and calmly. Her eyes are even concealed by dark black sunglasses. For the audience, this scene accounts for another attempt of white society to help African Americans out of their misery, while neglecting to discuss what their problems – besides being poor – actually are. The audience is supposed to feel sorry for Johnson, who has tried everything in her power to save the boys, and at the same time condemn the seemingly ignorant black grandmother. The close-up of Johnson’s unbelieving look as well as the melancholic background music at the end of the scene support this message. The movie mainly focuses on Johnson as an extraordinary teacher – the white

hero – who faces difficulties on every level: personal problems, the school, her students as well as their families. Smith neglects the problems of this black family because they are irrelevant for the narrative that centers on Johnson, not on her students.

The film focuses more on Johnson’s life – her education, previous jobs, and divorce due to an abusive husband – than on those of her students. She is the main character, and the students are elements she needs to prove her worthiness of being a hero. This becomes clear in the final part of the movie when Johnson’s student Emilio is killed and she questions her teaching career. First, the main focal point is Johnson’s reaction to Emilio’s death, not his girlfriend’s – although she is shortly shown crying – or his family’s, which is not even mentioned; the audience sees Johnson crying at school and lying awake at night in her bed in the next scene. Finally, Johnson decides to quit because she does not manage to save all her students from their disastrous circumstances. Emilio’s death appears to have only affected

Johnson. The final question posed in the movie, however, is not if the students succeed or not, but if Johnson will continue teaching them. The very last scene presents Johnson happily walking out of the school after having been convinced by her students to continue teaching them. Her final words when being asked for her reason to stay are the following: “They gave me candy and called me the light” (Smith 01:34:17-01:34:21). This line indicates that she only needed to be reminded of being the hero; she craved for the confirmation of her status as white hero by her students. Having achieved that, she can continue teaching and saving. The movie does not mention if her students will graduate because there is no need to; with

Johnson being their teacher, there is no obstacle – whether personal or systemic – for them in their further school career. Putting the attention at the end of the movie on Johnson, not on her students, clearly highlights that Dangerous Minds is a film about a white hero saving various minority children from their designated fates. The Blind Side uses the same narrative: “race conflicts are portrayed as simple misunderstandings that can be settled by the ‘great white

hope’ played by Sandra Bullock (similar to Mississippi Burning (1998))” (Bonilla-Silva 2012,

6).

There are numerous reasons for these fallacious representations in Hollywood movies.

Most importantly, the crux of the matter is white supremacy. All of the movies mentioned above – and it is only a limited selection – are based on the idea of white supremacy. They spread the idea that Euro Americans stand at the top of the racial ladder, while all other races are inferior to whites. This notion is influential and subtle at the same time. Euro American directors appear to tackle race and racial issues in a realistic and balanced way. However, white characters happen to be main characters in the majority of the movies with Euro

American directors. This fact underlines how pervasive white supremacy is in US society.

This becomes even clearer when taking into account the popularity and success of these movies, not only in the US but also around the world. A great number of these movies was nominated and/or received Academy Awards (Mississippi Burning, American History X,

Crash, The Blind Side), and all of them were commercial successes at the box office. In conclusion, Euro American directors spread subtle white supremacist ideas in movies, and especially the white audience rewards them with their financial support.

5.1.3 Are we not All Racists? The Naturalization of Racism and White Supremacy

An essential part of color-blind racism is naturalization: it is the claim that racism is natural to all people, and particularly that racism affects majority and minority groups to the same degree. This claim neglects that racism towards minorities involves all systems created by the majority in a society. There is little to no escape for minority groups from systemic racism such as discrimination on the housing and job market. The message of racism being natural does not only frequently occur in everyday conversations but also in Hollywood movies. One example is Crash as “the movie seeks to underline how we are all racists or at least prejudiced” (Ray 351). Haggis represents all racial and ethnic groups as racist and

prejudicial, and thus claims that racism is natural to all people. All characters, the Euro

American characters Rick and Jean Cabot, and Officers Hansen and Ryan as well as numerous minority characters such as Persian Farhad and African Americans Anthony and

Peter, are shown to have prejudice against each other in the film. The Persian shop owner

Farhad blames Latino Daniel of cheating him; Anthony claims that a black waitress in a restaurant treated him differently than white customers. In this way, Haggis uses the common strategy of blaming the victim. He blames minorities of being prejudicial and racist themselves. At the same time, this claim justifies racism by Euro Americans, and renders it ordinary and normal: when all people are racists, Euro Americans’ acts of racism are no longer exceptional. However, Haggis ignores the fact that Euro Americans dominate virtually all areas of US society and culture, and that therefore their racism functions institutionally and systemically, not only individually.

As explained above, Europeans invented the social category of race in order to establish white supremacy. The ideas of white supremacy – that other races and cultures are deficient (e.g. lazy, violent) – are so pervasive in US society that even parts of minority groups follow them, especially when these ideas do not involve their own group. In this way, white supremacy works so well that parts of minority groups think and act according to white supremacist ideas: They end up discriminating against each other. Additionally, prejudice against Euro Americans does not naturally exist, but it is a reaction to their concept of white supremacy. Personal experience of oppression carried out by Euro American systems drives minority groups to reject Euro American values; it functions as a defense mechanism.

Another example of a racist who is part of a minority group can be found in Lakeview

Terrace. Director Neil LaBute presents his main character Abel Turner as a prejudiced

African American police officer, who discriminates against his neighbors, a mixed-race couple. He dislikes the fact that white Chris is married to black Lisa. “Abel is not your

average white bigot but rather a righteously angry, or at least seriously crazy, black one”

(Scott). The reason for Abel’s behavior is more important than his racist actions and attitudes.

LaBute suggests that his resentment is rooted in Abel’s experience: his black wife had an affair with a white man. This explanation individualizes Abel’s bigotry and normalizes racism, especially systemic racism, against minorities. It neglects the influence of white supremacy on Abel. While LaBute presents Abel’s racism as rooted in his wife’s infidelity, it would be more accurate and realistic if white supremacy explained his troubling actions in his personal and work life. In fact, Abel is a perfect example that minorities embrace ideas of white supremacy: First, Abel terrorizes his neighbors because he is against miscegenation.

Secondly, Abel abuses a black suspect because of his prejudice against young black males as being lazy and criminal. Both actions are rather expressions of white supremacy, which everyone living in US society unconsciously learns, than founded in Abel’s infidel wife.

Several reviews comment on the fact that Turner’s reason for being abusive and dangerous to his environment is completely “risible” (Scott) and “an error” (Bradshaw).

According to LaBute, Turner’s rage stems from a trauma caused by his wife’s death, who deceased in an accident when she was on the way to her Euro American lover. For this reason alone, Turner opposes the marriage between African American Lisa and Euro American

Chris. This simplistic explanation has correctly been criticized. What is more important, however, is the question why LaBute does not give a more sound reason for Turner’s rage, especially since the whole movie is based on his problem with the mixed-race neighbor couple. An answer could be that this simplistic explanation is sufficient for LaBute as well as his intended audience. It suggests that Turner’s racism is rooted in personal trauma, and at the same time, it neglects any systemic racism. It seems more comfortable to LaBute – as is common in mainstream discourse – to present racism as personal and natural to all races.

LaBute depicts Turner’s racism as if it “exists in a political and cultural vacuum” (Scott).

There are various political and cultural ramifications of a mixed-race couple in US history.

The movie could but does not touch upon issues such as laws on miscegenation in the past to secure racial purity. Lakeview Terrace’s “supposed insights into race and class [are] so wrongheaded and ugly, that irritation trumps enjoyment” (Scott). Its alleged insight is that there are even African Americans with racist attitudes, who reject miscegenation and have prejudice against young African American males. In this way, the movie naturalizes and normalizes racism and white supremacy.

A further aspect of naturalization of racism is the fact that “the separation between well-meaning liberals and racists is blurred as “we” are all cast as “white,” with our deepest fears being underscored” in Crash (Ray 351). Haggis blends racists with liberals and non- racists. By naturalizing racism, Haggis claims that liberals and non-racists are people who have not yet acknowledged that they are naturally racist and prejudicial. This becomes evident when analyzing the scenes including Officer Hansen. In the early scenes, he is clearly presented as liberal, as the moral compass next to his racist colleague Ryan. Officer Hansen frowns when Ryan discriminates against the African American couple during the traffic stop; he even complains about his racist partner, so that he can be transferred onto a different team.

However, the fate of liberal police officer Hansen in the movie indicates that all people will detect their racist and prejudicial attitudes eventually: Officer Hansen realizes that he cannot escape his prejudice when fatally shooting African American Peter because Hansen suspects him of drawing a gun – which ends up being wrong. According to Haggis, even liberal

Officer Hansen has to recognize his natural feeling of prejudice, while, in fact, racism – as well as race – only appears natural. The reason for this is that white supremacy with all its impacts is a naturalized practice, which is deeply inherited in creating US society. White supremacy and its “racial grammar” are learned when living in US society, and Hollywood movies such as Crash function as filmic texts in the lesson of white supremacy (Bonilla-Silva

2012, 1). Haggis’s teaching goal in Crash “is that racism is not real – prejudice is real and everyone has these feelings or that it is natural for people who differ based on race or nationality to be in conflict. All of these conservative and white supremacist messages are reinscribed in the film Crash” (Hooks 2013, 115).

5.1.4 Blaming the Victim by Sequencing in Crash

Closely linked to naturalization of racism is blaming the victim of discriminatory actions. It is a common practice of color-blind racism. After incidents of discrimination or assault, mainstream society – often represented by media – blames victims of these actions for having done something that explains and justifies the discrimination or assault. There are numerous examples for this way of naturalizing discrimination. Blames range from fashion items (e.g. Trayvon Martin’s hoodie, fashion choices of female sexual assault victims) to past criminal offences. These blames appear to justify discrimination or assault because victims are presented as bad people. The goal is to create the appearance that victims deserve what was done to them: media and police present unarmed African Americans as criminals after being fatally shot; (male misogynist) society describes women as promiscuous after being sexually assaulted. This practice is frequently used in virtually all parts of society, whether in news reporting, courtrooms, private conversations, and even in Hollywood movies.

One way of blaming the victim is claiming that all people are racists, even minorities.

As mentioned above, minorities, who predominantly are victims of discrimination and racism, are claimed to be racists themselves. The aim of this claim is to render racism ordinary and general, so that discrimination and racism by Euro Americans against minorities appears less noteworthy and troubling. In fact, discrimination and racism are mostly issues of minority groups because they lack social and political power; in general, those having social and political power systemically discriminate against the more powerless: minorities, women, and the poor. By creating the illusion that all social groups equally experience discrimination and

racism, these issues lose in importance and are less likely to be tackled and resolved.

Hollywood movies by directors of the majority population such as Crash and Lakeview

Terrace purposefully feature minority characters being racists. These films convey the problematic message that people of all social groups are racists, and therefore minorities facing discrimination and racism deserve no special attention and treatment. They completely ignore the fact that US society is structured racially through the lens of white supremacy.

White supremacy affects minority groups greatly, as far as minorities face systemic racism by the social systems built on white supremacy on a daily basis; additionally, minority groups embrace the notions of race and its assumption of a racial hierarchy. The effect is that minorities may show racist attitudes and discriminate against each other individually but due to a lack of social power, not systemically.

Besides the general notion that racism is natural, Hollywood movies blame minority victims in their narrative by using the filmic technique of sequencing. Various movies feature scenes in which minority characters end up as victims of assaults by Euro American characters. More importantly, these movies present minority victims as criminal either before or after the scene depicting the assault. One example can be found in Crash: At the end of the movie, white police officer Hansen gives African American Peter a ride. The scene starts as an example for successful race relations. The two characters seem to enjoy each other’s company despite having different backgrounds and interests. They exchange humorous remarks, but one of them leads to a misunderstanding because of a small Christ statue in

Hansen’s car. Peter appears to ridicule Hansen; he feels insulted, pulls over and demands that

Peter get out of his car. When Peter attempts to resolve the misunderstanding and reaches for his pockets, Hansen feels threatened and fatally shoots Peter. The scene ends with Hansen realizing that he has made a mistake because Peter holds the very same statue in his hand that stands on the dashboard of Hansen’s car. The audience knows that Peter is an innocent victim,

and that Hansen has overreacted. A close-up of Hansen’s startled face clearly indicates that he realizes his mistake, and it tells the audience that his reaction is not justified (Haggis 1:31:28):

The scene establishes Peter as victim and Hansen as perpetrator.

In the narrative of the movie, however, the scene in which Hansen kills Peter does not stand by itself. Haggis embeds it in such a way in the narrative that it explains Hansen’s action. The sequencing of the scenes justifies Hansen’s reaction as reasonable and leads the audience to blame the victim. In one of the early scenes of Crash, Peter and his friend

Anthony are walking down a street. They meet a white couple, and Anthony complains about the woman’s reaction to them: she appears to move closer to her husband when recognizing the two African Americans. Haggis (09:53) designs this scene, so that Anthony and Peter end up drawing their guns and carjacking the couple:

This scene both justifies the woman’s reaction – which will be discussed later – and creates a seemingly reasonable explanation and justification of Hansen’s reaction in the car scene described above. Peter is shown concealed carrying a gun and using this gun to commit a crime. He even violently throws an innocent white woman on the streets. It is evident that

Haggis presents him as a criminal, a danger and threat to (Euro American) society. Presenting

Peter as a criminal is vital for his fate. While Hansen cannot know about Peter’s criminal past, the audience does. This sequencing creates dramatic irony: the audience knows that Peter poses a potential threat to Officer Hansen. That is why Haggis leads the audience to expect the eventual dramatic ending; Peter’s death is no surprise to the audience because of the sequencing Haggis uses. Since the audience expects Peter’s killing, his criminal past functions as a plausible explanation and justification for his death. The sequencing claims that Hansen’s reaction is not only justified – Peter actually has a gun and commits a crime at the beginning of the movie – but also Hansen may have even anticipated probable criminal actions by dangerous Peter. In this way, Haggis blames the victim Peter for his own death; he as a criminal deserves to be killed. At the same time, Haggis exculpates Hansen because his 66

reaction appears reasonable – especially to a Euro American audience – considering the imminent threat sitting next to him. Hansen functions as a prime example of the reasonable racist, who “should be excused for considering the victim’s race before using force because most similarly situated Americans would have done so as well” (Amour 264). This practice of victimizing the (white) perpetrator will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter.

5.1.5 The Perpetrator as Victim by Sequencing in Crash

While Euro American directors blame African American victims in their movies, they victimize Euro American perpetrators. The traffic stop, in which the two white officers stop and harass an African American couple, accounts for a major example of obvious racial discrimination represented in Crash. There is no doubt about Officer Ryan’s actions being racist and discriminating when he sexually assaults Christine Thayer during a traffic stop.

This scene clearly supports this claim as there are numerous close-ups of Officer Hansen’s and Cameron’s faces, which disapprove of the situation. It is, however, more important how this scene is framed within the movie. In fact, various previous and subsequent scenes feature

Officer Ryan and show glimpses into his life. Before this sexual assault scene, Haggis reminds the audience several times of Ryan’s compassion for his ill father, which establishes

Ryan as a loving child. Due to his father’s illness, Ryan calls Health Service and talks to the

African American woman named Shiniqua. He immediately judges Shiniqua, who “because of her name, is of little surprise to him black and most certainly ignorant and unqualified to assist him” (Hooks 2013, 103). It is clear that Ryan has racist attitudes towards African

Americans in general while being an American police officer, who ought to serve all

Americans. Finally, Shiniqua denies Ryan’s request, and in the next scene, he molests

Christine Thayer. By sequencing the scenes in this very order, Haggis suggests that Ryan’s racist actions are an immediate reaction to Shiniqua rejecting him before. This editing lets

Ryan’s racism not appear to be racism but anger, which “could be resolved in a few sessions

of anger management” (Hooks 2013, 109). This technique is exactly what Bonilla-Silva calls minimization of racism by victimizing the perpetrator. Haggis does not present Officer Ryan’s actions as racist but as a questionable individual mistake. Thus, he decontextualizes this racist action: it is then not an expression of institutionalized racism in US society but an individual mistake, which appears to have no connection to US society and history at all. This distorted representation is widely spread in US culture and commonly used in all areas of US society.

After the sexual assault in the police stop, Officer Ryan ends up saving Christine

Thayer out of the wrecks of her burning vehicle. As already stated above, Haggis shows

Officer Ryan’s development from a troubled man to a celebrated hero. This development underlines the fact that Haggis victimizes the former perpetrator Ryan. By saving the very black woman he sexually assaulted earlier, Officer Ryan confirms that the racial and sexual discrimination in the traffic stop was simply an individual mistake without racial implications.

The message intended by the director’s framing clearly is the following: Officer Ryan cannot be a racist because if he were he would not risk his life when trying to rescue a black woman.

Christine should be thankful that the former perpetrator Ryan is, in fact, not a racist but simply a human being who had a bad day. By analyzing how Haggis ordered the scenes involving Officer Ryan, it becomes evident that Haggis reinforces color-blind racism by framing the sexual assault scene in this manner. In this way, Haggis minimizes racism by creating the illusion that incidents of racial discrimination are individual mistakes triggered by people’s frustration and anger. Rather, they are microaggressions in a system that is based on white supremacy and carries out racial oppression.

5.1.6 The Modern Zip Coon Stereotype: The Black Danger to White Society

In general, mainstream Hollywood movies tend to feature Euro American actors and actresses in leading roles. At the same time, they provide limited space to African American and other minority actors and actresses. As highlighted in a previous chapter, African

American characters function as supporting characters to the Euro American ones and as drivers of the story. Due to the lack of screen time, African American characters are usually one-dimensional. White directors do usually not provide them with a background story and a complex personality, but represent them using stereotypes attributed to their social and racial group. For African American characters, this means that Euro American directors relate them to poverty, crime, and unemployment without or only insufficiently providing reasons for why African American characters are poor, criminal, and unemployed. What is striking is how frequently Euro American directors label African American characters as poor, criminal and dangerous. All Euro American films analyzed show one or more African American characters in this stereotypical way. There are, for example, the numerous students expelled in

Lean on Me because Principal Clark identifies them as drug dealers or abusers, the criminals

Peter and Anthony in Crash, the prisoner Lamont and the blacks killed by Derek Vineyard in

American History X, and the black suspect abused by Abel Turner in Lakeview Terrace.

Euro American directors predominantly present African American characters as unemployed, poor, and criminal. In fact, Euro American directors direly need to discuss the disastrous situation of a vast number of African Americans (and other minorities) because it would raise more attention to pressing issues in African American and minority communities.

The severe problem with the representation by Euro American directors, however, is that it misrepresents African American characters as unemployed, poor, and criminal. There is little to no screen time dedicated to discussing why they relate numerous African American characters to these issues so frequently. White directors hardly ever touch upon systemic racism on the job and housing market as well as in other areas of US society. In other words,

Euro American directors raise issues of African Americans without providing the necessary context. They neglect to or simply do not want to show and discuss reasons why African

American characters are mostly poor and criminal in their movies. In this way, Euro

American directors create the illusion that there are no factual historical and political reasons for the situation of African Americans. Rather, these directors suggest that African American characters are who and where they are in these movies because of their deficient culture or personality. The message underlying such movies is that African American culture or individual failings are responsible for the fact that numerous African Americans fail in US society. These directors – deliberately or not – engage in cultural racism as their movies carry problematic messages such as the following: African American characters are poor criminals because their culture values being lazy and dangerous. At the same time, they forget to mention the actual reasons such as systemic discrimination in education, housing, the job market, and the justice system as well as century-long oppression that created current circumstances and problems.

Black Side Characters as Criminals

African American characters are criminals in numerous movies such as in Crash,

American History X, Dangerous Minds, Lakeview Terrace, and Lean on Me. The film Crash is a highly interesting example because it is frequently lauded for discussing racial issues and spreading the idea of multiculturalism: “[T]he dialogue about Crash from media literacy corners, professors, educators, scholars, and activists has been dominated by congratulations for the film’s bravery in tackling charged issues” (Hooks 2013, 102). Although it is true that the movie deals with racial issues, it does so in a problematic way, especially regarding the representation of African Americans. A fitting example is the scene in which the African

American youths Anthony and Peter step out of a restaurant, walk down the sidewalk, and end up carjacking a white couple. For the most part of the scene, Anthony complains about how their waitress treated them in the restaurant. He assumes racial discrimination as the reason for a longer waiting time and no coffee. Peter functions as the reasonable counter-agent to

Anthony’s tirade: “You didn’t get any coffee that you didn’t want and I didn’t order, and

that’s evidence of racial discrimination? Did you notice that our waitress was black?” (Haggis

08:06-08:12) Haggis presents Anthony as an angry black man, who sees racial discrimination behind every action, while in reality and reasonably, there is none. Peter is the voice of reason, who asks the questions large parts of the Euro American audience would ask to counter Anthony’s accusations.

In this scene, they continue discussing the (alleged) incident in the restaurant by referring to the important issue that African Americans can discriminate against other African

Americans. Another (alleged) incident, however, interrupts their potentially fruitful discussion: Anthony sees a white woman move closer to her husband when they approach the couple. Anthony assumes racial reasons, Peter counters with reason again. The woman’s look right before she moves to her husband clearly supports Anthony’s claim. Sandra Bullock as

Jean Cabot is obviously looking towards them two times, once before (Haggis 08:50) and once after (Haggis 08:55) she grabs her husband’s arm for safety:

The close-ups of Jean Cabot’s face cause the audience to focus on her reaction to the two black men. Her facial expression and actions are so obvious that it is clear that she seeks her husband for safety in the face of two young and potentially dangerous black men. Anthony begins a truthful lecture on Jean Cabot’s actions and the space they are at: “Man, look around you, man. You couldn’t find a whiter, safer, or better-lit part of this city right now. But yet this white woman sees two black guys who look like UCLA students strolling down the sidewalk and her reaction is blind fear?” (Haggis 09:08-09:20) Haggis establishes that Jean

Cabot – reasonably or not – fears the two black men approaching her and her husband.

Additionally, Anthony discusses his and Peter’s appearance and how white people may perceive them:

I mean, look at us, dawg. Are we dressed like gangbangers? Ha? No. Do we

look threatening? No. Fact: If anybody should be scared around here, it’s us.

We are the only two black faces surrounded by a sea of overcaffeinated white

people patrolled by the trigger-happy LAPD. So you tell me, why aren’t we

scared? (Haggis 09:21-09:40)

Anthony makes clear that it is not the way they dress but their black skin that is responsible for Jean Cabot’s reaction. She feels threatened in a ‘white space’ because she perceives two young black men walking down the street at night. She does not perceive them as who they actually are but as the stereotypes (white) that US society commonly relates to young African

American males. This is the same way George Zimmerman interacted with Trayvon Martin before his killing: For them, Anthony and Peter as well as Trayvon Martin are modern Zip

Coons, potentially dangerous and threatening criminals.

Both, Jean Cabot’s reaction as well as Anthony’s analysis, indicate the implications of the Coon stereotype, how it can influence people’s minds and actions. Most of this scene presents how racial discrimination affects African Americans. It mentions different treatment in a restaurant and shows how they are shunned on the streets for no reason but their skin color. However, Haggis does not end this scene with Anthony’s analyis. Peter answers

Anthony’s question why they are not afraid in a white neighborhood: “Because we got guns?”

(Haggis 09:41-09:43) In the rest of the scene, they draw their guns, brutally force the white couple out of their car, and drive away. Then the scene ends. This ending completely reverses the message of the whole scene. Without it, the scene would discuss racial discrimination of

African Americans from Anthony’s and Peter’s perspective, and leave them unjustifiably discriminated against. Although it is not sure if Anthony’s accusations regarding them being discriminated against in the restaurant are legitimate, the audience is likely to identify Jean

Cabot’s reaction as racially motivated. By adding this ending, Haggis delegitimizes everything Anthony validly claims before. The overall message is that Jean Cabot is right when she considers Anthony and Peter criminals because they actually are. It does not matter which reasons underly her conclusion, whether racial or not. What remains with the audience

– and Haggis constructed this scene so it would – is that Anthony and Peter are criminals, who complain that society treats them unfairly while being a menace to it. Haggis creates this

scene so as to spread his conservative, white supremacist perspective on African American males: the dangerous Coons or criminals or thugs. As can bee seen in the success of Crash at the box office and at the Academy Awards, Haggis and the audience “accept these images as an accurate portrayal of who black men are” (Hooks 2013, 114). For the reasons put forward in this chapter, Crash accounts for a highly problematic film when it comes to representation of minorities.

The Modern Zip Coon in Charge in Lakeview Terrace

Stereotypical representation of African Americans does not only involve supporting characters but also main protagonists in movies by Euro American directors. In Lakeview

Terrace, African American Abel Turner is a veteran police officer and lives with his two children in the prosperous suburban neighborhood Lakeview Terrace near Los Angeles.

Obviously, he does not match the typical description of the modern Zip Coon, which usually refers to a poor young African American male. Abel Turner holds social power through his class status and his job as a police officer. However, the movie does not present Turner as a respectable upper-middle class single father but as a racist and violent criminal. Throughout the movie, Turner’s real predator-identity is coming to the surface more and more. It is apparent for the first time when Turner meets his new white neighbor Chris Mattson and acts as if he were robbing him: “Your wallet! Give me your wallet, man! Give it up! Come on!

Give it up!” (LaBute 15:00-15:05) Turner introduces himself to Mattson by showing his real, secret predator-identity for the first time, here disguised as a joke. According to the movie, he is a violent and dangerous black man disguised as a father and police officer, but reveals himself in front of Mattson. It is obvious how surprised Mattson is because of the discrepancy between Turner’s respectable appearance and his threatening attitude. The audience watches him ponder about his first encounter of Turner alone in his car (LaBute 17:05):

The relationship between Turner and his neighbors deteriorates quickly. He does not approve of their mixed-race relationship and shows them whenever possible. When Mattson finally tells Turner to leave his wife and him alone, the situation is about to escalate. LaBute uses close-ups of the men’s faces to show how they react during their conversation. At the end of the scene, their discussion escalates. There is background music suggesting a dangerous and menacing situation. Turner’s facial expression supports this claim, as he – unlike

Mattson, who appears disturbed (LaBute 41:34) – seems to enjoy the uncomfortable and threatening situation (LaBute 41:17):

While Mattson reacts defeated and helpless in the face of danger, Turner deliberately looks for and creates these situations. In this scene, it becomes clear that Turner is violent and unpredictable. Despite being dressed nicely, the audience recognizes how dangerous and

violent Turner is. His class status does no longer conceal his predator-identity but becomes clearly visible.

Turner poses not only a threat to his neighbors but also to suspects in his job as a police officer. In a police operation, Turner and his partner investigate a private home in a poor black neighborhood. The young African American suspect shoots at them and then tries to escape from the scene. Turner pursues him alone and manages to stop him. When the young man threatens to commit suicide, Turner reacts calmly and professionally at first. He attempts to persuade him while moving closer. However, Turner ends up abusing the young black man by grabbing the rifle, unloading it, and telling him to “stop bullshitting. Come on!

Stop playing. Go ahead, do it. Do it!” (LaBute 51:38-51:42) His suspect reacts scared for his life (LaBute 51:58):

Turner abuses his power as a police officer by verbally and physically abusing and even threatening to kill his suspect. Although he appears to be a respectable man – a father and

police officer – at the beginning, this scene clarifies who Abel Turner really is: a violent and dangerous black man.

The ending of Lakeview Terrace confirms Abel Turner’s actual identity: he hires his snitch to destroy Mattson’s home and, in an attempt to cover his tracks, assaults both Chris and Lisa Mattson. The movie ends in a shootout between Turner, Mattson, and the police, which leaves Turner dead and Mattson wounded. More problematic than the fact that Turner – being the black predator – dies and white Mattson survives the shootout, is that the movie does not show anything with regard to Turner’s family in the end. His family situation is no longer important to the story. This indicates that the movie is not about a single father struggling after the death of his wife. Rather it is designed to reveal the true identity of an

African American man, even if he is upper-middle class, a single father, and a police officer.

All these other identities play a minor role in the end; they only seem to conceal what allegedly lies at the bottom of every African American male. His main identity, which is disguised by all others, is the predator-identity. For this reason, Lakeview Terrace is another example of a movie by a Euro American director that represents African American males as inherently dangerous and violent. In this way, the movie helps spread the stereotype of the modern Zip Coon.

5.1.7 Cultural Racism as Extremism in American History X

Similar to the representation of African Americans in Crash, the movie American

History X relates African American characters to crime and drugs. This movie spreads ideas that render African Americans and other minority groups responsible for an (alleged) decline of US society and culture. These ideas can be called white supremacist; they identify African

Americans as enemies of Euro American culture and values. At the same time, they paradoxically blame African Americans for their low social status and their intention of improving their situations. White supremacists explain poverty in African American

communities by regarding black culture as inferior to theirs; additionally, Euro American society should not help African Americans resolve their problems – numerous of which were caused by white society – by any means.

Besides white supremacist groups, who strongly support these notions, these racist ideas are present in more moderate parts of US society. Cultural racism is present in popular stereotypes such as the black criminal and the black welfare queen in mainstream media such as mainstream Hollywood movies. The film American History X, however, relates notions of white supremacy and inferior black culture to extremist terrorist groups such as the KKK.

First, director Tony Kaye presents these notions through the mouth of teenager Derek

Vineyard in an interview right after his father died at his job as a fire fighter. Before letting

Derek speak, the interviewer mentions that the scene of the fire is a “suspected drug den”

(Kaye 14:23) It is Derek, who relates the suspicion of drugs to African Americans:

Well, this country has become a haven for criminals, so what do you expect.

You know, decent hard-working Americans like my Dad are getting robbed

out by social parasites. […] Blacks, browns, yellow, whatever. […] Yeah, it

was race-related. Every problem in this country is race-related. Not just crimes,

like, immigration, AIDS, welfare. Those are problems of the black community,

the Hispanic community, the Asian community. They are not white problems.

[…] He got shot by a fucking drug dealer who probably still collects a welfare

check. (Kaye 14:43-15:49)

This interview shows Derek extremely emotional, crying throughout it because of the loss of his father. He clearly blames African Americans and other minorities for their position in society as well as for problems they face. The interview contains virtually all existing stereotypes of African Americans such as the black drug addict, the black criminal, and the black welfare queen. In this scene, school officials and police watch this video in a meeting 79

on the day of Derek’s release from prison because his brother Danny emulates Derek. The video of the interview accounts for Derek’s earliest signs of radicalization and extreme racist views. In reality, however, these views are not as extreme as Kaye wants his audience to believe. Rather, all aspects of Derek’s interview are common and almost a cliché among Euro

Americans as concepts and ideas of color-blind racism by Bonilla Silva (2008) indicate.

Because of Derek’s traumatized state, he is not able to uphold the cover of color-blind racism but uses overt racist language at times (e.g. the N-word). The concepts and ideas underlying his words are, in fact, culturally racist ideas. While Kaye relates these ideas to radical neo-

Nazi groups, they are common in mainstream discourse such as mainstream Hollywood movies and disguised as color-blind racism.

White supremacist ideas play a great role in Kaye’s movie. Early in the film, Danny introduces his neighborhood Venice Beach by indulging in white nostalgia of a time before everyday contact with minorities: “Venice Beach didn’t always look like this. It used to be a great neighborhood. The boardwalk’s always been a dump. But when my Dad moved us out here, Venice was a nice, quiet place to grow up. Over the years all has just gone to hell”

(Kaye 16:06-16:23). Danny gives his account in a calm, rational voice supported by silent, sorrowful background music. Scenes showing African American youths playing basketball interrupt his narration: they are bare-chested, loudly arguing with each other, and behaving aggressively. When they see Danny watching them, they talk about him aggressively. The whole scene renders the African American youths a threat to Danny as well as his entire white neighborhood. The scenes showing aggressive African American teenagers on the basketball court – whom Danny calls a gang – give Danny’s narration visual proof of the change in his neighborhood. In contrast to Derek’s interview, Danny discusses his views in an unemotional and nonchalant way; this renders his comments less radical because he does not use abusive language, while still expressing the same stereotypes as Derek. Both participate in a violent

and criminal white supremacist group or gang, but relate African Americans and their culture to criminals and gangs.

American History X reveals that cultural racism, which is widely accepted in white US society, can lead to extremism and radicalism, but it rarely criticizes or counters arguments put forward by white supremacist characters. The only scene attempting to do so shows the

Vineyards sitting at the dinner table. The whole family, including the mother’s new boyfriend

Murray, discusses race riots, social inequality, and reasons thereof. When talking about the relation between race and crime, Derek refers to statistics: “It’s one in every three black males is in some phase of correctional system. Is this a coincidence or have these people a racial commitment to crime?” (Kaye 41:42-41:51) Derek clearly uses ideas of cultural racism when considering black culture as naturally criminal. He also does not acknowledge the few counterarguments put forward by his sister Davina and Murray that US society has caused black’s situation by oppression over centuries. The discussion leads to a physical confrontation between Derek and Davina, and ends with Murray being thrown out of the house. Derek establishes himself as head of the family. Again, Kaye relates Derek’s ideas to extremist groups when he shows the swastika on his chest. In fact, however, large parts of US society and culture, particularly mainstream Hollywood, share his ideas of deficient black culture, and therefore greatly disseminate the stereotype of the black criminal.

Kaye spreads white supremacist and culturally racist ideas throughout the entire movie with little resistance and counterargument. In the movie, white characters constantly blame

African Americans and other minorities of social problems from which minorities suffer the most. Derek mentions several social issues such as mass incarceration of people of color, extreme poverty, and police brutality. However, he – as well as the movie in general – fails to realize and explicitly state that white supremacy in US social systems cause all these social issues. It is the base of and major driver in US society. According to the movie, there are few

actual arguments to counter these ideas because virtually none – except the two short comments by Davina and Murray mentioned above – are featured in American History X. As the movie rarely challenges these dangerous notions, it rather functions as a means to distribute and glorify white supremacist ideas, when its major intention is allegedly tackling them. In fact, the movie hardly resists white supremacist notions in a way that transcends relating these culturally racist opinions to extremism and radicalism. Kaye is right when he represents cultural racism as part of radical white nationalist groups, but he neglects the fact that cultural racism is deeply rooted in white US society. Cultural racism is socially acceptable in the US, which mainstream Hollywood movies such as Crash, Dangerous Minds and others underline with their distorted representation of black people. By constantly relating cultural racism to extremism while ignoring its mainstream manifestations, Kaye gives the impression that it is not a problem in mainstream US society. Hence, white society – white directors, white audiences, and everyone except white nationalist groups – appears innocent of cultural racism when it is complicit. Due to these reasons, American History X is a prime example of a mainstream Hollywood movie reinforcing white supremacy when discussing issues of race.

5.1.8 Cultural Racism in Spatiality in Dangerous Minds

Another aspect of cultural racism in mainstream Hollywood movies involves spatiality. US cities are highly segregated because of Jim Crow laws designed to prevent

African Americans and other minorities from accessing Euro American neighborhoods.

Consequently, it was virtually impossible for African Americans – even for those from higher social classes – to move to white neighborhoods before the 1960s. The problem with segregated neighborhoods was that they correlated with school districts, which meant that schools were as segregated as the neighborhoods they represented. Minority schools lacked the funding of white schools, which provided minorities with fewer chances of climbing the

social ladder. Desegregation of schools tackled this problem of apartheid in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Movement, but it has not been fully resolved until today.

In theory, movies dealing with racial issues aim at representing (racial) reality. For this reason, segregated neighborhoods need to be depicted in these movies if the background of

African American or other minority characters plays any role in the movie. As demonstrated above, movies directed by Euro Americans tend to feature one-dimensional minority characters without or only little background story. Besides this majority of mainstream movies, there are films such as Dangerous Minds, Lean on Me, and The Blind Side that provide more insight into the lives of their African American characters by showing their neighborhoods. In all three movies, there is a clear juxtaposition between African American and Euro American neighborhoods. This fact alone is not problematic because segregation does exist in reality. However, Euro American directors exclusively depict African American neighborhoods as impoverished, crime- and drug-ridden, and in one word: dangerous. What is more, there is no explanation for why African American neighborhoods look like they do.

They do not mention underfunded schools, the lack of job opportunities, and extensive policing in these communities; all these reasons are issues that the US government is responsible for but cannot or does not want to resolve. The message that these movies suggest by giving no reason at all is that deficient African American culture produces these neighborhoods as well as the predators living in them. These neighborhoods and their representation by Euro American directors function as prime examples why white US society did not allow African Americans to move to Euro American neighborhoods in the past.

Similar to white US society in the past, these movies present African Americans as unfit to live in (white) civilization. In this way, movies such as those mentioned above implicitly argue for maintaining spatial boundaries between superior Euro American and inferior

African American culture.

Dangerous Minds demonstrates how important it is to Euro American directors to differentiate between African American and Euro American neighborhoods and their respective attached cultures. At the beginning of the film, director John N. Smith successively shows the two neighborhoods. He begins with an African American neighborhood, although the audience is unaware of who may live there at first; it could be any neighborhood, black or white. The background music is “Gangsta’s Paradise” by Coolio ft. L.V., two African

American rappers. For this reason, the audience may assume that it sees an African American neighborhood, but it can definitely not be certain yet. Smith shows shots of abandoned houses with graffiti on them, and it is only after forty-five seconds (Smith 0:45) that the audience sees the first resident of the neighborhood: a black man strolling from one to the other side of the screen in front of a wall with graffiti on it:

This shot does not only clarify which neighborhood the scene deals with, but it also introduces the black neighborhood as impoverished, partially abandoned, and potentially dangerous.

In the following shots, Smith shows an oblique traffic sign, a black homeless man roaming the streets, black students waiting for the bus, and a black drug dealer selling into a car with the school bus and students behind him. Moreover, the title of the movie “Dangerous

Minds” appears on the screen (Smith 1:10), which clearly classifies the black neighborhood and its residents as poor and dangerous:

The scene ends when the school bus drives away and takes the black students to their school in a different neighborhood. It is the first scene of the movie, which adds to its importance.

The goal of the scene is to introduce the neighborhood the black students come from with all its relevant aspects for the movie such as poverty, crime, and drugs.

Additionally, Smith uses black-and-white shots, which should arouse feelings of discomfort and fear in the audience. It also suggests backwardness of this community because black-and-white film is obsolete today. The lack of color in the shots directly refers to the lack of opportunities and hope of the neighborhood’s residents as well as the lack of attention and funding it receives from federal and state governments. The black-and-white shots underline

how deprived these neighborhoods are; it renders them artifacts of the past. At the same time, the scene hides any positive characteristics such as community, family, and friendship among residents because it solely focuses on how negative it appears to (white) outsiders.

As soon as the school bus reaches the white neighborhood, the black-and-white shots change to color ones. The change to color shots indicates how different the Euro American neighborhood is from the African American one. Smith (2:26) shows what the neighborhood looks like, a total contrast to the deprived black neighborhood:

In this shot, the audience sees big detached houses with perfectly-maintained lawns and white residents either on their way to work or bringing their children to school. There is no vandalism or any other sign of poverty and crime. It is a depiction of a typical suburban community, which is usually middle-class and white. This neighborhood is a perfect example of one that African Americans were not allowed to move to during segregation and cannot afford to move to now. In both ways, African Americans are locked out. It appears idyllic, especially because it directly follows the negative depiction of the African American

neighborhood. It is peaceful and quiet; the school bus full of supposedly dangerous black students, poses the only risk to an otherwise perfect neighborhood.

The two neighborhoods and its groups of residents are so completely different from each other that they do not seem to belong to the same state or country. The use of color shots and the lack thereof underline how enormously the neighborhoods differ from each other. It is clear that Smith exaggerates when depicting the two neighborhoods: the African American neighborhood seems purely negative, while the Euro American community appears idyllic and devoid of all problems. The question remains why these neighborhoods are completely different when a simple bus ride connects them. Smith does not offer a satisfying answer, but he indicates that residents are responsible for their neighborhood by referring to the black residents as “dangerous minds.” In this way, Smith uses cultural racism as a way of explaining the disastrous situation of African American characters by referring to their deficient culture. The whole plot of Dangerous Minds is based on the assumption that black students can succeed if a white teacher can civilize them. Their only problems appear to be dangerous thoughts they have due to the deficient culture they come from. This message is extremely problematic because it neglects structural and systemic problems of African

American and other minority communities such as century-long oppression and discrimination. This has led to underfunded schools, the lack of job opportunities, and extensive policing in these communities. Dangerous Mind’s message is appealing to Euro

Americans because it offers a pleasant explanation for the problems of other communities and ignores any entanglement of Euro Americans. In addition, cultural racism falsely renders Euro

American culture superior to all other cultures.

5.1.9 Cultural Racism in Education in Dangerous Minds

The culturally racist attitude can also be seen in how the school treats its minority students. Due to the desegregation of schools, African American students commute by bus to

schools in Euro American neighborhoods. Dangerous Minds shows a way of appearing desegregated on the outside while maintaining segregation under the surface. The main character LouAnne Johnson applies for a position at Carlmont High School and is given the job as an Academy teacher. She is as clueless as the audience concerning what being an

Academy teacher means. She asks the assistant principal, who explains it to her: “Well, the

Academy is uh… well; it’s sort of a school within a school. Special kids, passionate, energetic, challenging” (Smith 5:29-5:39). In her explanation, the assistant principal appears nervous; she stumbles over words and seems to choose her words carefully. It becomes evident that she is referring to the black students from the school bus, the dangerous minds, although she never mentions them directly. She uses euphemisms to describe them in order to sell the position to Johnson. Her real opinion on them remains unspoken but it is still clear:

She considers the black students problematic and potentially dangerous. Johnson’s friend and colleague Hal Griffith shares the assistant principal’s opinion. He wants to make sure Johnson has fully understood what she agreed to: “LouAnne, did did she t…tell you about the

Academy program?” (Smith 6:35-6:38) His speech is also nervous because he knows her future class. In this way, Smith leads the audience to expect the worst of Johnson’s class before having seen them even once: dangerous and criminal black youths. He engages the audience to be prejudiced against the black students. The message is that if Johnson knew better, she would not take the position.

On her first day of school, Johnson meets her class. Virtually all of them are minority students. Smith presents them as disrespectful, loud, misogynist, and uncivilized. One student calls Johnson “white bread” (Smith 09:09). Another student, Emilio, assaults her sexually within her first minutes in class: “I’ll eat you” (Smith 09:53). Similar to Smith’s contrastive representation of neighborhoods before, he contrasts the Academy class (Smith 10:20) with

Mr. Griffith’s regular white middle-class students (Smith 10:33):

While Johnson’s students are loud, standing, and sitting on tables, Griffith’s students are quietly sitting in their chairs and react startled when they hear the noise coming from

Johnson’s classroom. Griffith tries to calm his upset students and tells them: “Come on, come

on, come on, come on, you know what they’re like. Come on” (Smith 10:31-10:34). Griffith assumes his predominantly white, middle-class students to know how uncivilized and rude the poor minority students are. In his opinion, they should not be surprised or even upset but expect nothing else from them. Smith clearly presents the minority students as uncivilized and potentially dangerous, while the white students appear civilized and well behaved.

Moreover, the movie never explains the school’s policy of “a school within a school.”

It appears as natural that the school needs to separate poor African American and minority culture from middle-class Euro American culture. In this way, the school can evade complete desegregation and maintain racial and cultural boundaries within the school. According to

Smith’s movie Dangerous Minds, there is no question that the dangerous minds and their deficient culture have to be separated from civilized white middle-class students. It becomes clear that this Hollywood movie represents cultural racism without questioning it. For this reason, this movie obviously reinforces the cultural stereotype of the uncivilized and dangerous black people, who are not fit for civilized Euro American society but have to be kept apart. It argues for apartheid of classes and races under the cover of a desegregated school.

Another aspect of cultural racism in Dangerous Minds can be seen in how Johnson tries to appeal to her minority students in her teaching. In an attempt to receive their attention,

Johnson chooses to discuss Bob Dylan’s song “Mr. Tambourine Man” with her students. She explains that the tambourine man accounts for a code word for a drug dealer. Her students react by sharing experience with drugs from their own lives. Emilio refuses to participate because the matter is “too personal to discuss” (Smith 33:02). It becomes evident that Johnson presumes that her minority students have experience with drugs, although there has not been any indication of it in the movie. She wants to lure her students into working with her by relating the content of the lesson to her students’ world. As the title already suggests, Johnson

expects her students to be dangerous minds, either current or future drug abusers and/or dealers. The color of their skin and their social and cultural background are the only reasons for her assumption. She clearly perceives them as criminals and drug abusers. Equally problematic than Johnson’s racist assumption that her students are criminals because of their racial and cultural identity is the way Smith shows her students to react to her teaching. They confirm her troubling attempt to relate to them by not only showing interest in the topic, but particularly by sharing their abundant personal knowledge about drugs. Again, there is no reason than their racial and cultural background that could lead to how Johnson perceives her students. The film ignores to question her cultural racism, and thus confirms her wrong attitude to her students as acceptable and correct. In this way, Dangerous Minds reinforces the stereotype of the black and brown drug abuser.

If Johnson’s racist approach of choosing the topic of drugs in order to relate to her minority students is disregarded for a moment, there is another reason why her lesson on Bob

Dylan’s “Mr. Tambourine Man” can be considered culturally racist. Given the fact that

Johnson considers drugs mainly a problem of black and colored youths, there is no reason but cultural racism why she chooses a Euro American singer discussing the alleged minority problem of drugs. The sole objective of her lesson is to appeal to her minority students in order to win their attention. However, Johnson only tries to relate to her students on the level of content, not on the artist and poet level. This is particularly questionable since Smith even uses Coolio’s “Gangsta’s Paradise” at the beginning of the film. While Smith utilizes the rap song to introduce the crime-ridden black neighborhood, Johnson does not regard it as suitable for teaching purposes. The movie suggests that there is a difference between Euro American and African American art when it comes to using it in school. By her choosing Bob Dylan over any black or minority artist, especially when her main goal is appealing to her minority students’ interest, Johnson shows that she does not consider rap songs or any other art by

African American and minority artists as appropriate for her lesson. Another poet she uses in her class is Welsh Dylan Thomas. At the same time, the movie does not mention any black or minority artist in the movie, except for using them as background music. In this way,

Dangerous Minds supports the culturally racist view that Euro American culture is superior to

African American and other minority cultures in terms of quality.

5.2 African American Directors: Alternative Perspectives on Black Characters and

Culture

The analysis of movies by Euro American directors has shown that these directors spread ideas and images that contain white supremacist notions and stereotypical representations of African Americans. They do so in a subtle way: The larger part of US society does not consider the movies mentioned in the previous chapter problematic. On the contrary, numerous of these movies have won prestigious awards such as the Academy

Award. Additionally, these movies are not treated as white movies, although they feature white characters in leading roles in disproportionate numbers while using African American and other minority characters as supporting cast, often in a stereotypical way. Rather, these movies are said to represent US society realistically, and therefore are widely but wrongly regarded as neutral when it comes to race. Movies by Euro American directors are considered mainstream – and therefore unproblematic – while, in fact, they represent African Americans and other minorities by using wrong and misleading stereotypes.

It is vital that African Americans and other minorities produce their own movies in order to create a counter-narrative to the established mainstream Hollywood movies. Movies by African American directors can tackle fallacious representations in Euro American movies by offering alternative perspectives. This is necessary in order to create a more balanced and realistic representation of US society. It seems that such a less problematic representation of minority groups cannot be expected of Euro American directors. White supremacy appears to

be too ubiquitous, especially to privileged whites, to recognize racial problems, understand them, and discuss race more objectively.

Frequently, advertisers and other cultural elites label movies by African American directors as “black movies” (Bonilla-Silva 2012, 7). These movies feature African American characters in leading roles, are set in their neighborhoods, and discuss their lives and problems. Thus, the label seems justified. In comparison to movies directed by whites, however, the labeling loses in validity: Euro American directors mainly focus on white characters and use minority characters as supporting cast. As underlined by the analysis in this paper, the perspective in these movies is mainly conservative, white, and male. In contrast to

‘black movies,’ nobody would label these movies ‘white’ movies, although their focus on white characters would definitely justify this label. These ‘white’ movies are widely but wrongly perceived as universal, neutral and inclusive when it comes to race. In reality, their perspectives and messages represent only a small part of US society. Therefore, racially labeling some movies but not others is certainly misleading and generally wrong. The label

‘black movie’ virtually warns potential white audiences that the movie may not speak to them.

They may not be able to identify with (black) characters and/or may not agree with perspectives presented and ideologies inscribed in the movie. It appears perfectly normal for minority groups to watch movies with only white main characters and misrepresented minorities as supporting cast. “Our visual culture expects (maybe even demands) that people of color suspend belief and become white-like” (Bonilla-Silva 2012, 5). In this way, white supremacy plays a role in racially labeling movies.

The ‘black’ label on movies segregates movies by African Americans from the rest of

Hollywood movies produced and released. This segregation is not problematic per se, if it meant that sponsors, advertisers, the cultural elite, and US society treated these movies the same as those not labeled ‘black’. This is, however, not the case. The label ‘black’ limits its

market to African American audiences. This restriction affects every aspect in movie making from funding to reception. The limited market for ‘black movies,’ for example, impairs the potential for success at the box office; a smaller market means lesser overall audience.

Besides financial matters, this label limits the possibility of alternative perspectives, those resisting and countering the dominant whitewashed one, to receive greater public attention. If large parts of white society shun ‘black movies,’ alternative perspectives that are off the mainstream Hollywood discourse will not reach this group. In this way, labeling movies by

African American directors massively impairs the national discourse on race because it manages to exclude them from a greater stage.

In the following analysis of movies by African American directors, it will be shown how these movies present and discuss African American culture and its people, especially

African American males. When analyzing these movies, it will be clarified how different their representation of African Americans is generally from the dominant Euro American one. This analysis will give insight into how one-sided and problematic representations by Euro

American directors are while appearing balanced and neutral when it comes to race.

5.2.1 African Americans as Main Characters

Since the majority of Euro American directors disregard minority characters, there is dire need for minority groups to be adequately represented on screen. Fortunately, African

American directors exclusively feature African American characters in leading roles. There is not a single movie by African American directors considered for this paper in which the main character is white. This can be viewed as a direct counter-action to the unbalanced usage of

African American characters in Euro American movies. Moreover, African American directors use Euro American characters as supporting cast, only as peripheral figures in the black world. This becomes evident when analyzing movies such as Boyz n the Hood (1991) and Training Day (2001).

Only Black Boyz n the Hood

Boyz n the Hood was directed by John Singleton and appeared in US cinemas in 1991.

It received widespread praise and was nominated for two Academy Awards. The movie is set in an African American neighborhood in South Los Angeles, in which poverty and crime are major factors. It tells the story of three young African American teenagers growing up under difficult conditions. There are only African American characters, protagonists and supporting cast. Even the police officer presented twice is African American. Singleton uses this elaborate screen time for black directors to give insight into their lives, which Euro American directors commonly neglect to do in their movies. In fact, the only white character in this movie is a college recruiter, who is interested in Ricky Baker’s football skills.

There seems to be no reason to include Euro Americans more prominently because of the movie’s setting and plot. This neglect of Euro Americans in Boyz n the Hood mirrors how

Euro American society largely ignores black neighborhoods and their black residents.

Residents depend on and support each other. Euro American society only pays attention when it recognizes black talent from which it can potentially profit financially, and in terms of crime. The humming of helicopters is a constant background noise, which reminds the audience of how Euro American society mainly perceives black neighborhoods: as a potential crime scene. For these reasons, there is simply no need to include more Euro Americans in

Boyz n the Hood as well as in numerous other movies such as Chi-Raq (2015).

The White Side Character in Training Day

In contrast to Boyz n the Hood, Antoine Fuqua uses a Euro American side character in

Training Day (2001). This movie narrates the training day of white police officer Jake Hoyt with his superior, black Detective Alonzo Harris. The main focus of the movie is on Alonzo

Harris – played by Denzel Washington – as a corrupt police officer, who teaches Hoyt what

real police work looks like. Harris’s problematic character will be discussed in more detail in a chapter below. In short, he constantly violates laws such as consuming alcohol and drugs on-duty, stealing confiscated money and even plotting against and killing a suspect. He is the active character, while Hoyt passively observes and reacts to his actions.

In Training Day, Hoyt functions as both a rationale contrast to corrupt Harris and as eyes of the (white) audience. Firstly, Harris’s attitude and actions are certainly disturbing on their own account, but they become extreme with Hoyt as his idealistic rookie partner. The contrast between the two main characters is evident throughout the whole story: It is bad

Harris versus good Hoyt. The idealism of Hoyt becomes visible for the first time when Harris asks him why he desires to join the narcotics unit. Hoyt’s answer indicates his idealism: “I want to serve my community by ridding it of dangerous drugs” (Fuqua 09:48-09:52). He expresses what everyone in the audience would want a police officer’s motivations to be.

Harris reacts to it with a patronizing grin, asks again, and Hoyt replies one more time, “I want to make detective” (Fuqua 09:55-09:58). Harris values this answer more because it expresses

Hoyt’s individual goals rather than general, idealistic thoughts. Additionally, Hoyt refuses to follow Harris’s demands numerous times to participate in illegal actions. He declines to smoke confiscated marijuana as well as to drink beer on his shift. When Harris plots against his drug dealer friend Roger and executes him, Hoyt does not want to be involved. He disobeys numerous superior officers involved in the plot and risks being killed by them. Hoyt is the only one of the officers involved who does not steal money confiscated in the raid. In the end, Hoyt even succeeds in destroying Harris’s plan to use the confiscated money for himself and righteously delivers it to the department. Overall, Officer Hoyt clearly functions as the morally strong contrast to criminal Detective Harris.

Secondly, Fuqua uses Hoyt’s character as the focal point and eyes of the audience.

Since their first meeting, the audience experiences Harris through Hoyt’s eyes. Fuqua (04:23) uses several close-up shots from Hoyt’s direction in order to create this effect:

The ultimate effect of these close-ups from Hoyt’s perspective is that the audience immerses itself in the movie by providing this internal perspective. It feels a part of the movie. Kenneth

Turan, in his review for the LA Times, establishes Hoyt “as the in-over-his head audience surrogate, a capable but inexperienced cop who could handle most things but wasn’t prepared for the detective sergeant.” Turan connects the white, idealistic, and righteous police officer to the (Euro American part of the) audience. In this context, it is highly interesting to notice that

Training Day gained about $76 million at the box office, according to Box Office Mojo and

The Numbers, which renders it one of the most successful movies directed by an African

American in history. The fact that Fuqua uses a Euro American side character, which facilitates immersion for (white) audiences, should not be neglected. Because of Hoyt as white side character, Fuqua avoids that his movie is labeled “black.” This renders the movie

(more) relevant to Euro American audiences, and consequently increases its financial success as well as its chances to win an Academy Award. Another relevant aspect for the significant success of this movie is that Alonzo Harris accounts for the stereotypical representation of a modern Zip Coon. This will be discussed in a later chapter.

In conclusion, the converse representation of racial groups in movies – mainly whites in white movies and vice versa – suggests that there exists a balance on the screen when it comes to race. The major problem, however, is that films by Euro American directors appear as universal and race-neutral. It appears so natural to feature white main characters and black side characters in these movies that they rarely receive criticism. At the same time, films by

African American directors are categorized as “black movies,” which renders them a niche genre in the movie market. Consequently, these movies are advertised as products for African

Americans only, with the effect that their audience is predominantly non-white (Bonilla-Silva

2012, 7). As a result, white movies – while not being received as white – reach larger crowds and pass for mainstream movies. Therefore, both white and non-white audiences perceive the problematic messages regarding race and minorities spread by these mainstream movies.

Since ‘black movies’ are said to target predominantly black audiences, white US society widely neglects their deviating perspective on society, race, and minorities. Exceptions are movies by African American directors that also prominently feature white characters such as

Training Day. White side character Hoyt accounts for a loophole that Fuqua uses to avoid the

‘black movie’ label. In this way, he reaches larger parts of US society, which can be deduced from its success at the box office and at the Academy Awards.

5.2.2 Decriminalizing the Black Youth

As mentioned in a previous chapter, African Americans, especially young males, are said to be more prone to violent and criminal behavior than every other racial group. This myth has existed since the times of slavery when enslavement was justified with the

allegation that blacks are naturally uncivilized. Since Ronald Reagan introduced the War on

Drugs in the 1980s, this myth has been transformed into a cultural fact, with no factual evidence, used to justify high policing in African American neighborhoods. The media has played an integral part in distributing this myth by disproportionately featuring black perpetrators in their stories. Mainstream Hollywood movies by Euro American directors – as those analyzed in the previous chapters – portray African Americans as drug dealers and criminals. In this way, they need to be considered a major factor in establishing and maintaining the false image of the black criminal.

Since there are hardly any non-stereotypical representations of African Americans in mainstream Hollywood movies, it is crucial that minority directors provide a more realistic portrayal of minorities and their worlds. The analysis of movies by African American directors has shown that the majority decriminalizes African Americans, particularly black male youths. In these movies, African American characters face serious issues including violence, poverty, and crime. Numerous black characters show even violent and criminal behavior. However, these directors do not reduce African American characters to roles as drug dealers and dangerous criminals. On the one hand, directors underline that troubled youths have reasons for their misguided behavior. These often violent characters are shown as human beings with their own stories, dreams, and goals. This representation adds depth to these characters, and thus prevents them from being too one-sided and mere stereotypes. An example for such a more complex character is Trey Styles in Boyz n the Hood. He is the main protagonist of the movie, which indicates that his story receives main attention. In contrast to his friends, Trey is the only one living with his father. With this important figure in his life,

Trey learns important lessons about having respect for others and himself, taking responsibility for his actions, and appreciating education. He explains to Trey the difference between him and his friends on their very first day living together:

You know, Trey, you may think I’m being hard on you right now but I’m not.

What I’m doing is I’m trying to teach you to be responsible. Like, your little

friends across the street. They don’t have anybody to show them how to do

that. They don’t. You’re gonna see how they end up too. (Singleton 13:00-

13:14)

This scene clearly establishes Trey as a special character, as one of the most positive characters in this movie.

What renders Trey’s character noteworthy is not merely the fact that he is established as well behaved. More importantly, Trey’s innocence and decent background stand in total contrast to his violent plans and actions meant to avenge his murdered friend Ricky in the end of the movie. As a reaction to this friend’s death, Trey decides to search and kill Ricky’s murderers, although his father tells him not to:

Oh, you’re bad now huh? You’re bad, you are going shoot somebody now.

Well, here I am. Come on, shoot me. You’re bad, right? I am sorry about your

friend. My heart goes out to his mother and his family. But that’s their

problem, Trey. You’re my son. You are my problem. Now I want you to give

me the gun. Oh, I see. You want to end up like little Chris in a wheel chair,

right? No, no, you want to end up like Doughboy. Give me the motherfucking

gun, Trey. (Singleton 1:33:24-1:34:20)

Trey develops from a well-behaved and successful teenager to a plotting killer within minutes, but he reconsiders his actions eventually. His story is an example of how innocent and promising (black) youths can fall into a circle of violence. The message is that anyone, even the most promising character in this movie, can indulge in violence due to these disastrous conditions in poor African American communities. His violent behavior does not

100

stem from being naturally violent because of his race, but from violent and dangerous conditions in his neighborhood, from frustration, grief, and powerlessness. Singleton portrays

Trey as a complex human being with both positive and negative traits. In this way, he avoids both rendering Trey a saint and flawless hero as well as perpetuating the stereotype of the dangerous young African American male. That is why Singleton’s portrayal of black youths helps further the discussion of violence within the African American community. It points towards the roots of the problem. This problem of violence is systemic and institutional, not personal as Euro American directors so commonly suggest.

On the other hand, African American directors feature black characters who suffer from the rampant violence in their own communities. These characters desire a peaceful life as much as any white person; there are families and small children, who are dragged into shootings without any reason. These characters have no intention of participating in any violent actions. There are numerous examples of these characters in movies by African

American directors. In all movies analyzed, there are small black children who experience violence and death of close family members. In Fruitvale Station, Oscar Grant leaves his four-year-old daughter behind. In Chi-Raq, African American girl Patti is shot dead on the street, which triggers the protest for peace in the movie. In Boyz n the Hood (Singleton

1:31:18) and Training Day (Fuqua 1:40:16), small black children observe or are in the middle of violent scenes involving shootouts, blood, and death:

101

These shots underline that the binary – black perpetrator and white victim – excludes the main victims of violence: African American families. Those suffering the most under the violence in poor black neighborhoods are not Euro Americans but black residents.

102

While white civilians hardly ever see the inside of a poor black neighborhood, the only

Euro Americans coming into such neighborhoods are police forces. Unfortunately, police do not always contribute positively to the atmosphere but also participate in keeping the circle of violence moving. This happens in the traffic stop in Boyz n the Hood mentioned above, in which a black police officer threatens and assaults Trey Styles. Another scene showing Trey’s girlfriend Brandi attempting to do her homework in her room interrupts the scene of the police stop. Gunshots in the background constantly disturb Brandi: “I am tired of hearing that shooting all the time” (Singleton 1:14:26-1:14:28). Both scenes complement each other in creating the image of the neighborhood as dangerous, especially for children and teenagers.

These two scenes highlight that violence is ubiquitous in this poor black neighborhood.

Additionally, they demonstrate that gangs and the police trigger violence. This results in this neighborhood constituting an environment in which nobody – not even the most innocent residents such as Brandi – can ever feel safe. Consequently, Trey and Brandi decide to move away to Atlanta in the end of the movie. In these incidents of violence, victims are mainly black residents, particularly black children, who carry these memories with them for the rest of their lives. As obvious as this may seem, mainstream Hollywood movies by Euro

American directors broadly ignore this vital aspect of violence in poor black neighborhoods and intensely focus on the stereotype of the black criminal, usually threatening white characters.

In contrast to the movies discussed above, there are hardly any black characters being terrorized in their own neighborhoods in mainstream Hollywood movies. This creates the appearance that this issue of black residents suffering from violence does not exist at all. In this sense, all African Americans appear to support violence, even in their own communities.

In fact, black characters tend to terrorize only innocent white characters in movies directed by

Euro Americans. As a result, there is a binary contrast between bad and dangerous black

103

characters, and good and peaceful white characters. In reality – as well as in movies by

African American directors – this binary contrast does not exist. It is a mere expression of white supremacy, and it is refuted by African American directors.

5.2.3 Humanizing the Black Victim

There is little doubt that African American males are more likely to be attributed to criminal behavior than their white counterparts are. This goes so far that media and police search for a criminal background in the lives of African American victims of violence, often lacking both evidence and relevance of the inquiry for the case. One such example is killed black teenager Trayvon Martin: The media and Zimmerman’s family disseminated false information such as wrong portraits and rumors of him as a drug dealer in order to create false evidence for courts to use to justify his killing (Coates 2013). In the same context, Geraldo

Rivera and others blamed Martin’s hoodie for his death. Criminalization of (innocent) black youths accounts for one of the main strategies of white supremacy to justify violence against

African Americans: “America might justify itself, the story of a black body’s destruction must always begin with his or her error, real or imagined” (Coates 2015, 96). For this reason, there is a dire need to decriminalize black youths, guilty or not. African American directors appear to understand this necessity because they use their movies as a means to decriminalize black youths.

Linked to the decriminalization of African Americans and especially black male youths is the need to humanize African American victims of violence. Humanizing African

Americans means understanding that every African American, innocent or criminal, holds human rights. This notion appears self-evident at first. However, legal scholar Michelle

Alexander accurately points out that society tends to regard criminals as a group below humans, stripping them of basic human rights: “Criminals, it turns out, are the one social group in America we have permission to hate. In ‘colorblind’ America, criminals are the new

104

whipping boys. They are entitled to no respect and little moral concern” (141). Since Euro

American society tends to criminalize African Americans, this consequently also dehumanizes them. According to this flawed rationale, it appears legitimate to shoot and kill

Trayvon Martin: his skin color renders him suspicious of being a criminal. Therefore,

Zimmerman is entitled to hate, disrespect, and eventually kill Martin without conviction.

Identifying African Americans as criminals strips them of their human rights, more precisely their right to live. This logic suggests that Martin deserved to die because he was a criminal, essentially bad with no prospect of changing (which he was definitely not). This

“criminalblackman” (Alexander 162) only exists as this stereotypical, utterly negative figure; there is no possibility for him of having a family, dreams, thoughts or any other human qualities. That is why Euro American society always searches for this (real or imagined) criminal background: This strategy withdraws all human qualities and rights of African

Americans, and justifies violence against them as well as violent death.

Since criminalizing and dehumanizing are such common practices to legitimize deaths of African American victims, African American directors attempt to counter these strategies with their movies. Similar to Euro American society, these directors dig deeper into the lives of the victims. While the media and police, however, desire to discover past wrongdoings of the victims, African American directors present aspects from the victims’ lives that helps experience them apart from stereotypes. These stories portray victims as human beings with good and bad personality traits. The movies establish African American victims of violence as human beings, whether there is a criminal background or not. Bad decisions in the past and/or even in the present do not (necessarily) justify killing, whether legally or ethically.

One example of such a movie is Fruitvale Station. It revisits the last day in the life of

African American Oscar Grant III, who police killed in Oakland, California in 2009. More important than the actual killing is how the movie presents the victim Oscar Grant. It shows

105

his last hours, which he spends trying to get his job in a grocery store back, preparing a birthday party for his mother, and celebrating New Year’s Eve with his girlfriend and friends.

In addition, the movie mentions his past in prison, his consumption of marijuana, and his unfaithfulness to his girlfriend. In other words, director Ryan Coogler establishes Grant as a complex human being, neither saint nor villain. Several reviews support the claim that

Coogler represents Grant in a balanced way (Bailey, Bradshaw, and Scott). This movie convincingly argues that Grant, as uncountable other unarmed African Americans killed by police, was not a predator but “at all events, a private citizen who did not deserve to be shot dead in cold blood” (Bradshaw).

In contrast to this view on Coogler’s depiction of Grant, there is “US press coverage suggesting he has been romanticised here, as if only cynicism were dramatically valid or plausible” (Bradshaw). The review by Kyle Smith in the New York Post is a prime example of how difficult it can be to perceive African Americans in reality (and black characters in movies) as complex human beings. First, Smith wrongly claims that Grant’s killing was not a racist one and equates it to an ordinary traffic accident. A white police officer shooting an unarmed black teenager is always racial in the US because of the context of American history and recent incidents. It is inconceivable that a white teenager would have received the same treatment or experienced the same fate. This unequal treatment is enough to render the killing racial, and in this case racist. The perpetrator does not need to consider himself or publicly announce to be a racist to achieve that the killing is taken as such. Secondly, Smith blames

Coogler of omitting relevant information that justifies Grant’s death. The only evidence he puts forward in his review is that Coogler does not mention the reason for Grant’s past imprisonment – gun possession, as Smith claims. It is difficult to understand how this changes the perception of Grant as a person, let alone justifies his killing. Thirdly, Smith dislikes the fact that Coogler renders “Grant more loveable with completely made-up scenes such as one

106

in which he cares for a dog hit by a car. (The poster shows Grant with hands clasped in an almost saintly pose.)” The official poster shows Grant at a subway station (Gravillis Inc.):

It requires a great amount of imagination to perceive Grant’s character as a saint in this poster, especially considering his allegedly dangerous fashion choice. Smith criticizes Coogler for showing scenes – imagined or real – that present Grant as a loved family member and father.

This point of criticism put forward by Smith accounts exactly for the quality of Coogler’s representation of Grant, for which the movie was awarded with prizes at the Sundance Film

Festival and the Cannes Film Festival in 2013. It goes beyond what Smith does, identifying him as “22-year-old black drug dealer Oscar Grant” (Smith). For Smith, Grant is primarily a black drug dealer, whose story and human qualities do not count: “The only remarkable aspect of Grant’s life was its end.”

Smith’s review is an epitome of how large parts of (white) US society perceive

African Americans. The tendency to criminalize and dehumanize them is so strong that more complex and balanced representations appear exuberantly positive and saint-like. As for

Smith and numerous others in the US, they are so immersed in white supremacist culture that

107

“they perhaps couldn’t abide the film’s portrayal of a young black man as a complex human being – you’re either a thug or a saint, good or bad, black or white (sometimes literally), with no shades of grey between. But this is not a phenomenon unique to Fruitvale Station”

(Bailey). The unjustifiable reactions of Smith and other critics highlight how crucial movies such as Fruitvale Station are for instigating a more fruitful discussion on race, society, and justice. There clearly is a substantial need for more movies that deal more realistically with

African American characters and their issues. This job should not but currently seems to be limited to African American directors.

5.2.4 The Modern Zip Coon in Power in Training Day

The majority of African American directors treat African American characters as complex human beings, not mere stereotypical figures. Their movies account for counter- narratives and counter-representations challenging racial stereotypes in mainstream

Hollywood movies. For this reason, they receive great approval in scholarly circles and by minority groups for their more realistic portrayal of African American characters. On the downside, these movies do generally not attract the same attention in (Euro American) society because numerous are labeled as ‘black movies.’ This label limits the audience in racial terms.

Limiting these movies to non-white audiences does not only affect their distribution in US society, but it also impairs their chances to win prestigious awards as well as to be financially successful. For example, the Academy Awards function as a major impetus for movies nominated and even winning this renowned prize. Until now, the Academy has nominated only three black directors for an Award: the two African Americans John Singleton for Boyz n the Hood (1991), Lee Daniels for Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire (2009) and British Steve McQueen 12 Years a Slave (2013). None has won the prize yet. Similarly,

African Americans are underrepresented in other categories such as Best Actor/Actress and

Best Supporting Actor/Actress (Dirks). This influential institution largely ignores African

108

American achievements and virtually excludes them from its awards. This clearly shows that the Academy Awards discriminate against African American directors and actors.

One of the only four African American actors to win an Academy Award for Best

Actor is Denzel Washington for his role as Alonzo Harris in Training Day. Because this number is so small, it is interesting to analyze the character Washington embodies for his prize-winning role. Alonzo Harris is an African American detective, who “is the worst example a young officer could ever have to learn from” (Mitchell). He is corrupt and violent, consumes alcohol and other drugs on duty, and steals confiscated money. His actions contradict every code of conduct police officers ought to abide by. Not even regular citizens are allowed to behave in this way without facing social and legal problems. Harris is an uncivilized modern Zip Coon in power. He regards himself in this way when he explains his understanding of police work to his young trainee Hoyt: “To protect the sheep you have to catch the wolf. And it takes a wolf to catch a wolf” (Fuqua 33:38-33:42). Harris believes that a successful police officer act at the same level as criminals. For him, a good police officer acts as a wolf: violent, reckless, fearless, unpredictable. All these adjectives relate to the stereotype of the modern Zip Coon. This stereotype expressed the notion that white society deemed African American males naturally not made for civilization, and thus used it to justify excluding the predators from civilized society.

Besides Harris’s attitude that renders him a modern Zip Coon, he dresses in a way that is generally associated to thugs, violent and dangerous African American youths. This is obvious in the movie’s official poster (Indika Entertainment Advertising), which advertises the movie:

109

It shows Harris wearing heavy jewelry, a black hat, and a black leather jacket. While he does not necessarily appear as a criminal, his attire is certainly closer to a thug than to a police officer. Harris works undercover after all. His car supports this appearance: “a lacquered black 1977 Monte Carlo that is so much the latest in street-styling that it could be right out of a music video with Nelly [a famous black rapper]” (Mitchell). While Harris’s work undercover in narcotics demands his dress code and vehicle, it does definitely not justify his actions. These actions are highly problematic because they – in combination with his appearance – insinuate the modern Zip Coon stereotype. This is particularly troubling as reviewers agree on the significance of Washington’s interpretation of the predator Harris: It renders the movie “notable” (Mitchell) and even “elevates Training Day to a place it wouldn’t otherwise occupy” (Turan). Washington received the Academy Award of Best Actor for this problematic representation of an African American man. It becomes evident that (white) US society approved of the representation of Harris.

What is problematic about Training Day is not only that it represents Harris as a wolf and a predator. Additionally, it renders criminals wild and dangerous animals when it refers to them as wolves. This is disturbing because this imagery denies criminals humanity and 110

justifies harsh treatment. Moreover, Fuqua exclusively presents African Americans as criminals (except the other corrupt police officers and the Russian mafia). The movie includes numerous scenes that show bare-chested and potentially dangerous African Americans with guns. When Harris and Hoyt enter an African American neighborhood, they call it “the jungle” (Fuqua 49:40). Throughout the movie, Fuqua (50:17) represents residents of African

American communities as primitive, animalistic, and dangerous:

This shot is only one of numerous others. Harris advises Hoyt that he not go there without him. Harris does not feel threatened there because he is one of them. LA Times critic Turan claims that the movie’s “enthusiastic demonizing of ‘the hood,’ its well-executed intention of making crime-ridden neighborhoods seem as ugly and unpleasant as possible, gets a little wearing and leads to a savage and largely implausible ending.” Turan is right with his claim that Fuqua explicitly depicts African Americans – even his main protagonist Harris – as savages and animals and their neighborhoods as dangerous. However, he misses the implied message of the story when he calls the ending “largely implausible.” In fact, the ending is

111

reasonable when considering its racial context. In a civilized world, an uncivilized character such as Harris cannot survive; he needs to pay the price for his actions in the end. The ending accounts for the white supremacist version of racial justice: (White) civilization as carried out by the Russians brings the black predator to heel and kills him in the end. At the same time, white Hoyt remains standing as the hero and savior of (white) civilization.

Fuqua’s Training Day underlines that African American directors do not necessarily present minorities in a more realistic way. Nobody is safe from influence by white supremacist notions and the stereotypes that come along with them. More important than the reasons for Fuqua’s problematic representation of African Americans in this movie is the fact that it accounted for an enormous success. Reviewers and jurors praised Washington’s impersonation of Harris, thus accepting and normalizing this controversial character. This only demonstrates how deeply embedded racial stereotypes are in US society. Either society cannot identify Harris as this troubling modern Zip Coon character or it does not care because he is entertaining. Both possibilities shed light on the fact that white supremacy is decisive in the way in which large parts of society – Euro American and other racial groups – think about race today.

5.2.5 The Black (Neighbor) Hood: Beyond Poverty and Crime

Numerous movies by Euro American directors present their understanding of African

American neighborhoods. Movies such as Lean on Me, Dangerous Minds, and The Blind Side represent these neighborhoods exclusively as sites of poverty and crime without any positive characteristics. According to these representations, residents live in imminent danger to shootings, whether by police or gangs. At the same time, there is no reason given how and why these neighborhoods resemble war zones and why residents choose to live there. These black neighborhoods are not only presented solely negatively, but this representation appears to be natural, related to deficient black culture. This white view on black neighborhoods is full

112

of stereotypes such as the lazy, criminal, drug-abusing black male and the welfare queen.

These directors do not mention systemic racism, lack of jobs, and over-policing.

In movies by African American directors, black neighborhoods are also presented as dangerous due to gangs, drug trafficking, and heavy policing. These directors, however, transcend poverty and crime when it comes to representing African American neighborhoods and their residents. Despite living in constant fear of violence by gangs and police alike, black residents try their best to live a happy and fulfilling life. These movies provide a different, more positive and optimistic side to the representation of these places and the people living there. Virtually all movies by African American directors demonstrate a more complex representation, especially John Singleton’s Boyz n the Hood but also Chi-Raq and others.

As Boyz n the Hood revolves around black boys growing up, it shows how and where they live. In this film, Singleton presents South Central Los Angeles as dangerous, but most black residents still manage to live peacefully and happily together. The fact that this neighborhood is dangerous is obvious throughout the whole movie. The noise of police helicopters can constantly be heard in the background. Singleton points out how hazardous

African American neighborhoods are for their residents at the very beginning. Before the first scene of the movie, the audience hears an aggressive dispute, which leads to gunshots and screams. In addition, Singleton shows two quotations in white letters on the black screen:

“One out of every twenty-one Black American males will be murdered in their lifetime”

(Singleton 00:21). “Most will die at the hand of another Black male” (Singleton 00:29). Both quotes underline that violence is an important issue within the black community. In the first scene of the movie, Singleton shows four black children on their way to school. They stumble over a crime scene, including bullet holes in the walls, blood on the ground, and the yellow police barrier tape (Singleton 01:58):

113

This scene points out that even children are confronted with crime, violence, and death on a daily basis. Those are ubiquitous in poor black neighborhoods. These children are so entangled in this dangerous world, that they draw caskets, police stops, and police helicopters at school (Singleton 02:40):

114

Already at the beginning and throughout the whole movie, Singleton presents black neighborhoods as potential sites of crime. There are gang fights and drive-by shootings, which render the place immensely threatening to its residents. This picture is the one that the news and movies by Euro American directors frequently create when it comes to poor black neighborhoods. African American directors also present black neighborhoods in this way because poverty, crime, and violence are essential problems in poor black neighborhoods.

In contrast to the stereotyping of black neighborhoods in mainstream media, Singleton as well as other African American directors such as Spike Lee provides reasons for the disastrous situation of African American characters. Boyz n the Hood discusses highly relevant issues such as systemic racism in housing, on the job market, and in federal and state funding of schools, hospitals, and other forms of infrastructure. The movie does so by character speech. Jason “Furious” Styles explains to his son Trey and his friend Ricky the structure of African American neighborhoods with the example of Compton: “Why is it that there is a gun shop on every corner in this community? I tell you why. For the same reason that there is a liquor store on almost every corner in the black community. Why? Because they want us to kill ourselves. You go out to Beverly Hills, you don’t see that shit” (Singleton

01:06:11-01:06:25). Such explanations are essential in providing context to representations, which white directors usually omit.

Furious Styles functions as a teacher on two levels: First, he holds the position of a leader in the black community. When he speaks, black people gather around him to listen. He manages to point out certain developments in US society and culture, and to link them to the situation of African Americans. In his speech, Furious Styles makes clear that violent black youths are only one part of the explanation for the violence in black neighborhoods. Systemic racism triggers the violence: It is a lack of education and jobs on the one hand, and an abundance of gun shops and liquor stores on the other. The major reason why black

115

neighborhoods are dangerous is that US society deprives them of job opportunities and future prospects in general. These neighborhoods are still shaped today as Jim Crow laws designed them in order to exclude African Americans from economic progress and keep them at the bottom of the social order.

Moreover, Furious Styles educates the audience of Boyz n the Hood. This audience may be familiar with dangerous African American neighborhoods from the news or other media, but may know little about reasons for this. Furious Styles’s monologue causes the audience – whether black or white – to think about and consider his explanation. This effect is essential because it transcends the usual stereotypical representation of African American neighborhoods, which is so common for mainstream media and movies. Boyz n the Hood offers insights into structural problems in the African American community. In this way, it challenges mainstream white Hollywood’s view on these neighborhoods as naturally – that is due to African Americans’ inferior culture – poor, deprived, and dangerous. Therefore, the movie is not only entertaining but also thought provoking, informative, and educational.

Besides representing this black neighborhood as dangerous, Singleton also shows it as a place where its residents experience love, friendship, and happiness. The movie provides a more complex view on this African American community. It goes beyond solely relating it to crime and poverty. The black characters enjoy and struggle with life at times, in the same way white characters do in mainstream Hollywood movies. Even in this crime-ridden neighborhood, there is time to celebrate with friends and family. Singleton (29:08) depicts a party for Darrin “Doughboy” Baker, who has been released from prison:

116

This scene clearly shows that this neighborhood is a place where human beings live, not dehumanized criminals. There is a world apart from poverty and crime within this African

American community. Euro American directors, however, usually ignore this more favorable image of these communities.

Stereotypical representations of blacks as criminals are so common and widespread in

Hollywood movies, especially when Euro Americans direct them, that any representation differing from the mainstream appears extraordinary. It is troubling that a balanced – not entirely positive or negative – representation of African Americans has to be considered the exception not the rule in mainstream US cinema. Contrasting Boyz n the Hood with the movies by Euro American directors discussed above underlines that these directors portray

African American communities and their residents deficiently and one-sidedly.

5.2.6 Police as Contributor to Violence in Black Movies

As explained earlier in this paper, the War on Drugs has mainly affected African

American communities. The main target zones in the War on Drugs and today are in black

117

neighborhoods. African Americans are more likely to be stopped and searched by police because they perceive them as criminals, especially when it comes to drug abuse and trafficking. This attitude of assuming criminal behavior and/or drugs when seeing blacks greatly shapes the experience of African Americans. Police interactions are part of the lives of numerous African Americans – whether they are guilty of a crime or not. For this reason, it is no surprise that African American directors frequently portray police interactions with

African American characters in their movies. All movies by African American directors considered for this paper contain scenes depicting African American characters encountering police. This fact alone indicates that police stops are an aspect in the lives of numerous

African Americans, while Euro Americans hardly ever experience them. They appear to be the rule not the exception in the life of an average African American male.

Both African American and Euro American directors portray African American males in relation to crime and law enforcement. This can be explained with the undisputable fact that African American communities are indeed highly policed in reality. However, their portrayals differ in how directors perceive and depict interactions between African Americans and police. Euro American directors suggest that extensive policing in African American communities is justified by representing black characters as criminals and their neighborhoods as war zones. In contrast, African American directors show scenes in which police officers – black and white – engage in racial profiling, discriminate against black characters, and use excessive force. What is more, they do not victimize these officers by exaggerating personal reasons for their racist actions such as Paul Haggis does when depicting a police officer assaulting a black woman in Crash. There are numerous examples in the movies analyzed, particularly in Boyz n the Hood, Fruitvale Station, and Chi-Raq for unlawful police actions.

In Boyz n the Hood, police stop main protagonist Trey Styles and his friend Ricky.

The two police officers involved – black and white – do not give a reason for the traffic stop,

118

but they do tell them to step outside the vehicle and ask for drugs and weapons. As explained in a previous chapter, Amendment IV forbids unreasonable searches without probable cause.

In this case, the police officers do not provide any reasons; the only reason remaining is that they stop Trey and Ricky because they are two African American males. This may cause the two officers to perceive them as potential gang members or criminals, but it is certainly not legally justified. The officers do not find anything in their search, but the African American officer still directs his gun at Trey’s neck, threatening to kill him. He also calls him “nigger” and wrongly accuses him of being in a gang (Singleton 01:13:20):

This scene underlines that the job of police in US society is rather the domination over and the destruction of the black body than the safety of the African American community, according to Singleton (Coates 2015, 9). The black police officer considers the two black teenagers dangerous and criminal. His character personifies the racial design of the War on

Drugs. Its policies as well as the police officer in this scene cannot differentiate between law- abiding black youth and gang members. Both perceive them only as modern Zip Coons that

119

need to be dominated and brought to heel. Trey and Ricky are victims of a struggle for power in society between (African American) gangs and police. Police function as representatives of society dominated by Euro Americans. In this position, they ensure that (the racial) order is maintained. As the War on Drugs was designed to achieve the domination over the black body, the black police officer seeks to dominate over the two black teenagers. He is certain that (white) society, from which he receives his authority, stands behind him when he tells

Trey: “Think you tough, huh? I could blow your head off, and you couldn’t do shit. How you feel now?” (Singleton 01:12:52-01:12:59) He knows that there will be little consequences if he were to kill and destroy Trey’s body because of the support by society: “The destroyers are merely men enforcing the whims of our country, correctly interpreting its heritage and legacy” (Coates 2015, 10).

The fact that the violent officer is African American himself is no contradiction in this scene. His view on black youth resembles that of the white supremacist War on Drugs: There is no benefit of the doubt for black youths; they are guilty until proven innocent. Black scholar William David Hart points out that even African Americans perceive other African

Americans in terms of the stereotype of the black criminal:

To put it crudely, black people see black people through white eyes. The

perceptions of the dominant race are the dominant perceptions. This

dominance is part of what makes the subject-constructing gaze of white

supremacy structural, material, and discursive rather than merely subjective.

(97)

In this way, an African American police officer discriminating against African Americans does not mean that there is no racism involved. Rather, it renders the racism involved systemic and structural. White supremacist notions such as claiming black culture to be inferior are spread so widely and with little challenge that all racial groups may perceive them

120

as natural. For this reason, these notions are so powerful and influential that they transcend the affiliation to a specific racial group.

Another aspect the scene above points out is that it is hard for people in African

American neighborhoods to escape violence – whether from gangs or police. In Boyz n the

Hood, Trey and Ricky have to flee from a gang shooting in one scene and end up in another life-threatening situation, a police stop, in the next. Chi-Raq emphasizes visually and verbally that innocent African American families are caught between gang violence and police violence. The director of the film Spike Lee (01:01:14) shows a scene in which Dolmedes – played by Samuel L. Jackson – stands between a gang member and a police officer drawing their weapons:

This scene symbolizes the situation of innocent African American families unable to escape violence in their communities. They are trapped in this violent environment, only able to cover their ears and hide from the violence as Dolmedes does. What is more, Lee uses

Dolmedes as an extradiegetic figure to explain scenes from the film and their context. In this

121

scene, Dolmedes discusses the situation of African American families: “Let’s get true here:

Cops and gangs, black and brown folk stuck in the middle” (Lee 1:00:53-1:00:56). This aspect is essential to understand relations between police and African American communities.

The majority of residents of black neighborhoods is peaceful and innocent, but is terrorized by gangs. Police, however, tend to treat all black residents – gang member or not – using the same degree of violence. The ones harmed the most are African American families. It is crucial that directors such as Singleton and Lee include this aspect in their movies because

Euro American directors hardly ever touch upon it in their one-sided representation of poor black neighborhoods.

5.2.7 The Creation of the Predator: Systemic Racism, Violence, and Excessive Manhood

As repeatedly argued in this paper, the stereotype of the black criminal is ubiquitous in all forms of US media. Mainstream Hollywood, especially Euro American directors, is one of the main channels that spread this stereotype all over the country and around the world.

According to the dominant representation in these forms of media, black gangs rule black neighborhoods and cause them to be sites of poverty and constant threat and danger.

However, these mainstream media outlets appear to have little interest in explaining why these neighborhoods face problems such as poverty, violence, and crime. They mostly neglect to discuss how the modern Zip Coons they depict are created. Largely, their ignorance is based on the racist, wrong assumption that African American males are naturally violent and criminal. Fortunately, African American directors include possible explanations in their movies as a means to counter and dismantle these racist but widely accepted attitudes towards

African American youths.

One explanation for the existence of violence by gangs in African American communities is that, in general, US culture approves of and enjoys violence. Spike Lee’s movie Chi-Raq, a blending of Chicago and Iraq, starts with the fact that more Americans were

122

murdered in Chicago between 2001 and 2015 than American soldiers were killed in the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq combined. In the movie, black feminist Helen Worthy explains to main protagonist Lysistrata why US society accepts the life-threatening conditions in parts of Chicago: “Americans like war. They like guns. Fun and games. […] Ask the parents at

Sandy Hook. When they murder white babies and things don’t change? Saving black lives is way out of range” (Lee 22:14-22:28). She points out that US society accepts and enjoys violence, as long as it does not affect white people directly. The fact that Denzel Washington received an Academy Award for his role as vicious police officer Alonzo Harris supports the claim that US society enjoys violence in entertainment.

US society’s embracing of violence is the basis for the success of gangsta music and the ‘thug life’ it proposes. Besides African American youths, gangsta culture is also extremely popular and successful in white, suburban audiences (Alexander 173-175). Lee also comments on this through the voice of white minister Corridan: White “children, however, admire the thug life. But they do so from the safety of suburban Chicago” (42:24-42:33), while African American children suffer from violence by gangs in their communities. Father

Corrigan further relates the violence in parts of Chicago to “a reality TV urban murder show that can be seen every night at five and ten. On every channel. On any news show you want to watch” (Lee 42:44-42:54). He convincingly claims that white US society refuses to act against violence in African American communities because it does not involve white suburban audiences directly. The distance renders the real events surreal for white audiences, so that they can even enjoy this violence as entertainment.

In this way, Chi-Raq addresses systemic problems that are responsible for creating the conditions in poor black neighborhoods. Father Corrigan and others in the movie single out the lack of will on the part of US society that causes most of the issues in these communities.

The movie mentions lack of economic development, mass incarceration, and lax gun laws as

123

reasons underlying deprived black neighborhoods. However, Lee as well as Singleton in Boyz n the Hood goes beyond blaming (white) US society for its failings and wrongdoings. They identify gangsta culture and its erratic understanding of (black) manhood as one of the main reasons for violence, especially on the part of gangs. In Lee’s Chi-Raq, this criticism is particularly obvious because the whole plot revolves around the sex strike by black women.

Led by Lysistrata, black women organize and plot against their male partners in order to bring about peaceful change in their community. They – including Father Corrigan – literally question and attack black manhood that threatens lives of innocent black children: “You cannot murder our children, and go back to the crib, turn on Sports Center, eat a Whopper and fries, and act like nothing ever happened. We will not allow this self-inflicted genocide to continue” (Lee 47:50-48:04).

What the revolting black women in Chi-Raq tackle is the desire of parts of African

American male youths to gain respect and fame by violent behavior: “All you care about is this tired gangsta game. Well, it’s lame. You think you’ll die with fame. Negro, two days later, no one will even remember your name” (Lee 33:32-33:42). Hooks also points out that this troubling understanding of manhood is one of the major aspects of violence in poor black communities: “Many of the destructive habits of black men are enacted in the name of

‘manhood.’ Asserting their ability to be ‘tough,’ to be ‘cool,’ black men take grave risks with their lives and the lives of others” (2007, 111). Visual aspects of this criticism are scenes showing gang members in a wheel chair. Both Singleton (1:27:17) and Lee (51:41) use the powerful images, which foreshadow the probable future for gang members:

124

At the same time, Lee underlines that relating manhood to violence and physical strength is not exclusive to African American youths. It merely glorifies the already existing value of excessive manhood that has always existed in patriarchal societies, including US

125

society. One sign of this excessive manhood in US society is the way US authorities have reacted to violence in African American neighborhoods. When discussing black-on-black crime, as Lee does in his movie, Euro Americans usually propose using more police and rigorous force in the affected community. They interpret this situation as a fight for power between gangs and police that inevitably involves violence. (White) US society and its police force have attempted this approach of “getting tough on crime” since proclaiming the War on

Drugs in the 1980s. Consequently, the situation for African American residents has not improved but even worsened.

Lee does not follow this approach of using more police violence against gang violence. His movie puts forward the idea that violence in black communities is tackled “not through repressive policing but through the voluntary renunciation of violence and surrendering of guns” (Brody). He recognizes that men cannot resolve the problem of excessive manhood. Lee establishes black women as those who can bring about change in

African American communities. They do not only challenge African American men but also white men because they fall victim to the same excessive interpretation of manhood, only in a different disguise. Lee’s movie mostly focuses on African American men because the African

American community is most likely to change this problem on its own. For other problems such as lacking infrastructure, job opportunities, and good education, it requires assistance by

Euro Americans, who control virtually all social and political institutions in the US.

In conclusion, movies such as Boyz n the Hood and Chi-Raq highlight that there are numerous reasons for the problems African American communities face. Both Euro

Americans and African Americans are responsible. Unlike mainstream Hollywood movies, these films discuss how this violence is created in a complex way. They correctly blame systemic racism for causing poverty and a lack of opportunities for African Americans. At the same time, they do not shy away from holding problematic parts of African American culture

126

such as gangsta culture accountable for the role it plays. The result is a truthful and balanced discussion that the discourse on race in the US direly needs. For this reason, the filmic representations by African American directors deserve a broader audience, both in- and outside the US, as well as more recognition in US culture. Particularly Euro American parts of society would definitely benefit from being confronted with the intriguing ideas and thoughts put forward in these movies.

127

6. Conclusion

This paper has shown that the stereotype of the Zip Coon from slavery was adapted to that of the “super-predator” or the modern Zip Coon in today’s US society. While the uncivilized and preposterous Zip Coon was regarded as unfit for white civilization during slavery and Jim Crow, the dangerous black man is seen as a menace to white civilization.

Both stereotypes achieved that black men were stripped of human qualities to justify unequal and harsh treatment by white society. Today, (white) US society uses the stereotype of the dangerous black man – or modern Zip Coon, thug, predator – to justify police tactics such as

‘search and frisk,’ mass incarceration of people of color, and police brutality and even killings with little to no accountability of police officers involved. Underlying all these policies and tactics is the racist assumption that African American men are naturally dangerous, violent, and criminal. Consequently, they deserve to be treated harshly and, too often, even with lethal force. These violent acts appear to be justified because every black man is potentially dangerous and criminal through the lens of white society. This wrong conception of blacks is deeply rooted in US society because of the country’s racial history. Since the beginning of television and movies, visual images have played a vital role in perpetuating the perception of menacing black men. Even in today’s supposedly post-racial time, mainstream Hollywood movies contain these hurtful images of African Americans, although undoubtedly in a more subtle way.

In this paper, it was shown that mainstream film directors largely use stereotypical representations of African Americans in their movies. These stereotypes have existed in US culture since the beginning of slavery. They have survived over the centuries because Euro

American society still uses them to conceive and control African Americans. Black and brown people account for the ‘Other,’ onto which Euro American society projects its fears and negative qualities. This strategy was highly effective during slavery and segregation in

128

placing whites at the top of society while keeping a clean conscience. In similar ways, politicians – both Democrats and Republicans – have successfully campaigned against

African Americans by conflating them with criminals, rapists, and uncivilized predators. The white electorate has greatly appreciated these efforts with their votes for candidates promising

(racial) law and order.

Similarly, mainstream Hollywood movies – created by white directors – portray

African American males as criminals, frequently in relation to poverty, drugs, and crime. All mainstream Hollywood movies analyzed in this paper perpetuate the modern Zip Coon stereotype. Their narratives mainly focus on white characters and feature blacks as side characters, which help white characters become heroes and confirm their racist views. Black side characters are commonly without names and/or background story because they are only used as props. This is even the case when movies revolve around black characters: Dangerous

Minds, for example, establishes teacher LouAnne Johnson as the white savior of poor and dangerous children of color, who greatly lack stories of their own. Moreover, mainstream

Hollywood directors largely represent black characters as poor and criminal, but they neglect any serious, more complex discussion of why they are represented this way. These characters are purely negative ones, living in neighborhoods represented as war zones. These battlefields of gangs and police are contrasted with idyllic suburban white neighborhoods, the havens of white American civilization. At the same time, these directors ignore discussing pressing issues of the African American community beyond stereotypes, which suggests that deficient black culture is responsible for deprived black neighborhoods. These racist depictions are even more problematic because these movies are highly successful in terms of revenue and awards. It demonstrates that US society is not only used to these stereotypical representations, but that it even desires to see African Americans as modern Zip Coons. Hollywood – being an industry – satisfies the expectations of its audience and, in turn, is financially rewarded for it.

129

Even black director Antoine Fuqua participates in showing black characters as violent and dangerous in Training Day, especially visible in main protagonist Alonzo Harris as a corrupt detective. That Denzel Washington received the Academy Award for Best Actor for playing the predator Harris underlines that (white) US culture praises and honors racist portrayals.

In contrast to white directors, African American directors predominantly counter the misrepresentation of mainstream Hollywood. Their movies focus on black characters and their problems, neglecting white characters. They portray black characters as neither saint nor villain but complex human beings, and thus illustrate that mainstream Hollywood representations of blacks are flawed and problematic. The independent movie Fruitvale

Station by Ryan Coogler highlights that large parts of US society are unfamiliar with perceiving young black men as human beings, instead of dangerous criminals. When confronted with this movie, some – for example Kyle Smith in the New York Post – regarded the representation of young African American Oscar Grant, who was killed by police, as too positive and saint-like. Smith’s reception of the movie underlines that balanced portrayals of

African Americans are rare but highly necessary in order to deal with real issues African

Americans face such as police brutality. They cannot be tackled if a large part of US society sees African Americans as criminals without human qualities. Additionally, these directors discuss issues the African American community faces such as poverty, violence, and stereotyping in the media. Spike Lee’s Chi-Raq, for example, illustrates that both white and black culture are responsible for violence in Chicago. On the one hand, poor black neighborhoods lack opportunities and perspectives for its residents; on the other hand, black gang members terrorize their communities in their attempt to gain fame and respect by excessive manhood and violence. These movies by black directors function as a counter- perspective to mainstream Hollywood and media coverages that US society direly needs.

130

To conclude, I have to underline that a director’s race does not matter when analyzing movies. It is certainly not true that all movies by white directors are problematic, while all those by black directors deserve praise. Rather, it is true for all movies that they require a critical reception and analysis. As this paper demonstrated, mainstream Hollywood movies particularly need this critical approach because the label ‘Hollywood’ stands for quality in filmmaking. Hollywood is the most powerful film institution in the world. However, numerous of these movies contain problematic conservative messages, especially when it comes to race, and reinforce the concept of white supremacy. In this way, this quality label is misleading for a large number of these films.

Movies directed by African Americans or directors of other races deserve being treated with the exact same degree of criticism. As this paper pointed out, these movies need to be analyzed because it reveals that they generally represent reality and discuss important social issues in a more complex way. For these movies, the process of analysis and criticism sheds light on their quality and makes clear that they deserve a greater stage. The denigrating label ‘black movie’ must be tackled and abandoned because larger and especially whiter audiences need to be confronted with the perspectives that black movies contain. They need to be made aware of white supremacy in mainstream Hollywood movies because it reveals how it works in other parts of US society such as in the media, the criminal justice system, and the education system. A start in establishing that black lives matter is acknowledging that black movies matter.

131

7. Works Cited

7.1 Primary Sources

American History X. Dir. Tony Kaye. Perf. Edward Norton, Edward Furlong, and Fairuza Balk. New Line Cinema, 1998. Film.

Boyz n the Hood. Dir. John Singleton. Perf. Ice Cube, Cuba Gooding Jr., and Morris Chestnut. Columbia Pictures, 1991. Film.

Chi-Raq. Dir. Spike Lee. Perf. Nick Cannon, Wesley Snipes, and Teyonah Parris. Roadside Attractions, 2015. Film.

Crash. Dir. Paul Haggis. Perf. Sandra Bullock, Don Cheadle, and Matt Dillon. Lionsgate, 2005. Film.

Dangerous Mind. Dir. John N. Smith. Perf. Michelle Pfeiffer, Wade Dominguez, and George Dzundza. Buena Vista Pictures, 1995. Film.

Fruitvale Station. Dir. Ryan Coogler. Perf. Michael B. Jordan, Melonie Diaz, and Kevin Durand. The Weinstein Company, 2013. Film

Lakeview Terrace. Dir. Neil LaBute. Perf. Samuel L. Jackson, Patrick Wilson, and Kerry Washington. Screen Gems, 2008. Film

Lean On Me. Dir. John G. Avildsen. Perf. Morgan Freeman, Beverly Todd, and Robert Guillaume. Warner Bros., 1989. Film.

Training Day. Dir. Antoine Fuqua. Perf. Denzel Washington, Ethan Hawke, and Eva Mendes.

Warner Bros., 2001. Film.

7.2 Secondary Sources

Alexander, Michelle. The New Jim Crow. Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. New York: New Press, 2012. Print.

Anderson, Jacqueline, Sarah Lucia Hoagland, and Anne Leighton. “Now You See It, Now You Don’t. Magic Tricks of White Supremacy in the United States.” Yancy and Jones. 25-32.

132

Armour, Jodie D. (2013). “Race Ipsa Loquitur. Of Reasonable Racists, Intelligent Bayesians, and Involuntary Negrophobes.” Critical Race Theory. The Cutting Edge. Ed. Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 2013. 261–272. Print.

Bailey, Jason. “Fruitvale Station's Insight: Oscar Grant's Life Was Complex; His Death Was Tragic.“ Theatlantic.com. The Atlantic, 12 July 2013. Web. 15 Jan. 2017. .

Birch, Thos. “Zip Coon.” Library of Congress. Library of Congress. n.d. Web. 16 Jan. 2017. < http://www.loc.gov/item/sm1834.360780/>.

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. Racism without Racists. Color-Blind Racism and Racial Inequality in Contemporary America. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2010. Print.

---. “The Invisible Weight of Whiteness. The Racial Grammar of Everyday Life in America.” Michigan Sociological Review 26 (2012): 1-15. Print.

Bradshaw, Peter. “Fruitvale Station Review – A Tough and Moving Drama.” Theguardian.com. The Guardian, 5 June 2014. Web. 16 Jan. 2017. .

---. “Lakeview Terrace.” Theguardian.com. The Guardian, 5 Dec. 2008. Web. 28 Dec. 2016. .

Brody, Richard. “Spike Lee’s Necessary, Overwhelming “Chi-Raq”.” Newyorker.com. The New Yorker, 9 Dec. 2015. Web. 16 Jan. 2017. .

Burston, Betty Watson, Dionne Jones, and Pat Roberson-Saunders. “Drug Use and African Americans: Myth versus Reality.” Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education 40.2 (1995): 19-39. Print.

Chang, Jeff. Can't Stop, Won't Stop. A History of the Hip-Hop Generation. New York: Picador, 2005. Print.

Coates, Ta-Nehisi. Between the World and Me. New York: Spiegel and Grau, 2015. Print.

133

---. “Trayvon Martin and the Irony of American Justice.” Theatlantic.com. The Atlantic, 15 July 2013. Web. 16 Jan. 2017. .

C-SPAN. “1996: Hillary Clinton on “Superpredators” (C-SPAN).” YouTube. YouTube, 25 Feb. 2016. Web. 15 Jan. 2017. .

Dirks, Tim. Filmsite. AMC, 2017. Web. 17 Jan. 2017. < http://www.filmsite.org/>.

Drewry, Henry N., and Cecelia H. Drewry, eds. African American History. Past to Present. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971. Print.

Feagin, Joe R. and Clairece Booher Feagin. Racial and Ethnic Relations. Census Update. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2012. Print.

Finkenstaedt, Rose L. H. Face-to-face. Blacks in America: White Perceptions and Black Realities. New York: William Morrow and Co, 1994. Print.

Franklin, John Hope. “Reconstruction – Black and White.” African American History. Past to Present. Ed. Henry N. Drewry and Cecelia H. Drewry. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971. 100-112. Print.

Giglio, Ernest. Here’s Looking at You. Hollywood, Film and Politics. New York: Lang, 2002. Print.

Gravillis Inc. “Fruitvale Station.” Internet Movie Poster Awards. IMP Awards, 2017. Web. 17 Jan. 2017. .

Hart, William David. “Dead Black Man, Just Walking.” Yancy and Jones. 91–102.

Harwell, Drew (2016). “The Staggering Numbers that Prove Hollywood Has a Serious Race Problem.” Washingtonpost.com. The Washington Post, 23 Feb. 2016. Web. 28 Dec. 2016. .

Hooks, Bell. Black Looks. Race and Representation. Boston: South End Press, 2007. Print.

---. Writing Beyond Race. Living Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge, 2013. Print.

134

Hurwitz, Jon and Mark Peffley (1997). “Perceptions of Race and Crime. The Role of Racial Stereotypes.” American Journal of Political Science 41.2 (1997): 375-401. Print.

Indika Entertainment Advertising. “Training Day.” Internet Movie Poster Awards. IMP Awards, 2017. Web. 17 Jan. 2017. .

Internet Movie Database. Box Office Mojo. IMDb, 17 Jan. 2017. Web. 17 Jan. 2017. .

Jeffers, Chike. “Should Black Kids Avoid Wearing Hoodies?” Yancy and Jones. 129–140.

Lemons, J. Stanley. “Black Stereotypes as Reflected in Popular Culture, 1880-1920.” American Quarterly 29.1 (1977): 102-116. Print.

Mapping Police Violence. Mapping Police Violence. MPV, 1 Jan. 2017. Web. 16 Jan. 2017. < https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/>.

Meier, Kenneth J. The Politics of Sin: Drugs, Alcohol and Public Policy. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, 1994. Print.

Middleton, Joyce Irene. “Talking about Race and Whiteness in “Crash”.” College English 69.4 (2007): 321-334. Print.

Mitchell, Elvis. “This Is Not a Mentoring Program to Emulate.” Nytimes.com. The New York Times, 5 Oct. 2001. Web. 30 Dec. 2016. .

Nash Information Services, LLC. The Numbers. Where Data and the Movie Business Meet. NIS, 2017. Web. 17 Jan. 2017. .

Parés, Joel. “Judging America.” Joel Parés Photography. JPP, 2016. Web. Jan 15 2017. .

Pilgrim, David. “The Coon Caricature.” Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia. Ferris State U., 2012. Web. 22 Jan. 2017. .

---. “The Pickaninny Caricature.” Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia. Ferris State U., 2012. Web. 22 Jan. 2017. .

Ray, Sangeeta. “Crash or How White Men Save the Day, Again.” College English 69.4 (2007): 350-354. Print. 135

Reeves, Jimmie L., and Richard Campbell. Cracked Coverage: Television News, the Anti- Drug Crusade, and the Reagan Legacy. Durham: Duke UP, 1994. Print.

Rocchio, Vincent F. Reel Racism. Confronting Hollywood's Construction of Afro-American Culture. Boulder: Westview Press, 2000. Print.

Scott, A.O. “A New Year, and a Last Day Alive. ‘Fruitvale Station’ Is Based on the Story of Oscar Grant III.” Nytimes.com. The New York Times, 11 July 2013. Web. 16 Jan. 2017. .

---. “Lurking in the Shadows of Suburbia, a Menacing Neighbor with a Gun.” Nytimes.com. The New York Times, 19 Sept. 2008. Web. 28 Dec. 2016. .

Stampp, Kenneth. “To Make them Stand in Fear.” African American History. Past to Present. Ed. Henry N. Drewry and Cecelia H. Drewry. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971. 25-35. Print.

Turan, Kenneth. “Washington's Arresting Performance Drives a Thrilling 'Training Day'.” Latimes.com. The Los Angeles Times, 5 Oct. 2001. Web. 28 Dec. 2016. .

“U.S. Constitution.” Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, n. d. Web. 15 Jan. 2017. < https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview>.

Wemple, Erik. “Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly Blames Trayvon Martin’s Death on Hoodie.” Washingtonpost.com. The Washington Post, 16 Sept. 2013. Web. 24 July 2016. .

West, Carolyn M. “Mammy, Jezebel, Sapphire, and their Homegirls. Developing an “Oppositional Gaze” toward the Images of Black Women.” Lectures on the Psychology of Women. Ed. Joan Chrisler, Carla Golden, and Patricia Rozee. New York: McGraw Hill, 2008. 286-299. Print.

“Whitewashing. A Long History.” Nytimes.com. The New York Times, 22 Apr. 2016. Web. 16 Jan. 2017. . 136

Wines, Michael. “Reaction to Ferguson Decision Shows Racial Divide Remains Over Views of Justice.” Nytimes.com. The New York Times, 25 Nov. 2014. Web. 28 Dec. 2016. .

Woods, Baynard. “’Two Baltimores’: DoJ Investigation into Police Finds Vast Racial Disparity.” Theguardian.com. The Guardian, 9 Aug. 2016. Web. 11 Aug. 2016. .

Yancy, George, and Janine Jones, eds. Pursuing Trayvon Martin. Historical Contexts and Contemporary Manifestations of Racial Dynamics. Lanham: Lexington, 2013. Print.

137