Upon A Second Glance

Since the first humans came into existence, racism and bigotry has plagued and corrupted our every thought, making us fearful, and as a result, hateful, to anything that differs from our status quo. There has long been a saying that even if we humans were to wake up one morning to discover everyone was of the same, race, creed, religion, and color, we would find a reason to hate each other by noon.



There is, however, a silver lining in the perpetual cloud of intolerance. Humans, though often irrational and fanatical as a whole, are essentially a mixture of both light and dark, and are individually equipped with the infinite potential to do both good and evil. We all have the ability to trade in our biases and hatred for something much more positive, and this fact is demonstrated no better that in Tony Kaye’s award winning masterpiece, American History X. This film smashed the precedent set by most American films of the time that difficult and contentious topics are best left to documentaries, and that any ending that doesn’t end with the tell-tale happily ever after has no place outside of the horror genre. American History X jumps right into the deep end of today’s most controversial, but rarely discussed, issue of race, and navigates through it with intelligence and, for the most part, psychosomatic plausibility



As far as the plot was concerned, none could have illustrated the transformation from destructivity and hate-induced militancy to enlightenment so smoothly than that of this film. In the opening, we are introduced to narrator through the elegant words of his paper, and later find out that it was a an assignment forced upon him by his principle for being apparently sympathetic to the third Reich and praising Hitler’s Mein Komf in a book report. From there we become acquainted with our narrator’s charismatic older brother and idol, an up and coming Skinhead bent on the destruction of everything that was not ‘white, Protestant, and American’. We learn of the brother’s deep seated racist roots that traced all the way back to the subtle prejudices of their father, and eventually reached full boil when he was killed by a black gangster while trying to put out a fire in a crack house. We, as the audience, trail behind Danny Vineyard with a mixture of tear stained cheeks and rage filled shouts, following him along the winding roads of murder, prison, and redemption. We are filled with immeasurable pride when he triumphantly faces the demons of his hatred, and our hearts break along with his when tragedy once again shatters his world.



It is these roller coaster ride of emotions that make this film truly stand out among the rest, and ties the watcher to the true message of the movie This film not only explores the underlying racism among America’s white middle class, and the resulting real life uprising of the neo-Nazi Skin head’s, but causes the reader to look deeper into the similar vices that may very well lead to their own destruction.

Yeah, I don't feel like being creative with the title right now

Article One

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.depaul.edu/ehost/detail?vid=7&hid=104&sid=b4cd6cc1-1368-4719-b43b-23e1cdea1379%40sessionmgr103&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=fah&AN=1862850

Films that set out to expose racial hatred for "what it is" sometimes appear to be fanning the very flames that they are trying to quash. Remember Mississippi Burning, a portrait of systematic racial violence in America's Deep South? The pointy hooded klan reportedly advised their members to go and see the film because they felt it served their cause. The same might be said about elements of American History X.

The film sets out to expose the currents of race hatred in a poor Californian neighbourhood, and does so without glossing over any home truths. Racism comes in all hues: slipped in at the family dinner table or vitriolically bellowed out at ear-bleed volume through a concert PA stack.

The story follows Derek Vinyard (Edward Norton), the leader of a Venice Beach gang of skinheads, who is released from prison after doing time for killing two black crooks he caught breaking into his car. His younger brother Daniel (Edward Furlong) is now following in big bro's footsteps and looks up to him for leadership. But he discovers that his brother has changed a great deal during his stint behind bars.

Insights into Derek's development are presented in flash-back: the past, where convictions are more cut and dry, is filmed in black and white. The young Derek, seen through his brother's eyes, has an aura of divinity about him reflected in the music and religious iconography.

The performances are all excellent. Edward Norton shows an extensive broadening of his range, while Edward Furlong shows plenty of promise as an older actor. Avery Brooks gives a strong performance as the African American teacher who cares enough to try and work through the hatred.

American History X goes to the root of racist hatred. It reveals how potent a brew racist rhetoric can be on vulnerable, young minds. It is, ultimately, unambiguous in its depiction of the wastefulness and ugliness of racist rage and violence, but also offers a way of breaking the vicious circle of hatred. Racists may find ways of twisting the film to their cause, but then they always will.

This review was begun in such a way that might have suggested negative connotations were associated with this film and those like it (such as Mississippi Burning, a very famous movie that portrayed the treatment of African Americans in the Deep South that the author mentioned), but later backtracks on such a train of thought, stating that racists always have and always will find ways to twist well-intentioned portrayals to fit their own agendas. The author goes on to praise the film as being completely unambiguous in it’s message that racism and hatred of any kind are at best is totally destructive, and gives the movie’s actors very high marks. He gives the readers a small taste of the plot, highlighting the essentials but taking care to not reveal some key spoilers in between, to better help them understand if they are unfamiliar with the work, and to emphasis his points if they were. In the short amount of words he used, he essentially captured what is supposedly the intended message of the film, all the while offering his positive critique of both the plot and the performance.

Article Two

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=6&hid=17&sid=5b39d86d-aed0-4f73-97e8-8ff4c226260c%40SRCSM1&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=eric&AN=EJ783976

On the day that his older brother is due to be released from prison, student Danny Vinyard (Edward Furlong) turns in a paper praising Hitler's Mein Kampf to his Jewish teacher Murray (Elliot Gould). He is sent to the principal, Bob Sweeney (Avery Brooks) who assigns him another task. He gives him a day to complete an essay on the events that have shaped his life, including the events leading up to the imprisonment of his brother. The assignment will be called American History X.

Writing this essay provides the cinematic device to tell the story of Danny and his older brother Derek (Edward Norton). Derek has been imprisoned for the killing of two men who tried to steal his car one night. Derek didn't kill them because they were thieves but because they were black, and he had been the leader of a neo-Nazi, white-power group. Derek's hatred of blacks was triggered when his father, a fireman, was killed by drug-dealers (presumed black), who shot him as he attempted to put out a fire in a poor neighbourhood. Hooking up with a local white-power activist Cameron (Stacy Keach), he organises a group of white kids into an organised mob who terrorise local non-white owned businesses.

Derek's racism is directed at anyone he meets - he explodes with rage when he finds that Murray is friendly with his mother, because he is Jewish. So when he finds two black kids (one of whom he had encountered before) messing with his car, he has no hesitation in killing them. One of them survives the initial hail of gunfire but Derek finishes him off as he lies wounded on the footpath.

When Derek is released (after serving three years for manslaughter), he returns home to find his mother ( Beverly D'Angelo) and siblings living in a small, shabby apartment, and that Danny has become involved in the neo-Nazi movement. Derek's own reputation has been enhanced by his crime, but he wants nothing more to do with Cameron's activities, and is determined to stop his younger brother following in his footsteps. The film follows his attempt to explain to Danny how his life has changed, and Danny's own exploration of his family's past (through writing his essay).

Tony Kaye's film is a thoughtful and sometimes shocking account of a skinhead's descent into murder and his eventual attempt at rehabilitation. The film is driven by two outstanding performances, from Edward Norton and Edward Furlong. Norton is simply frightening as the hate-filled Derek, all shaven scowl and bedecked with swastika tattoos. His portrayal depicts a keen intellect corrupted by an unfocussed rage. However, Edward Furlong has arguably the harder role, as it is more subtle and less showy. As a gangly teenager, desperate for a sense of belonging, and looking for someone to look up to, Furlong's Danny looks as uncomfortable in his own body as he does in his surroundings. The film is sustained by the sheer power of their performances.

Kaye's direction is visually striking, even if he does tend to overdue his use of slow-motion shots and allegorical imagery. He uses grainy black and white for the flashback sequences, which adds a documentary (and more ominous) feel to them. Kaye presents a couple of truly shocking (though not gratuitous) sequences - the double killing opens the movie and is shown again near the end of the movie. It is a sign of Kaye's confidence and talent that he shows the same scene twice, since when we see the murders at the start of the movie, we merely see a menacing-looking skinhead committing a violent act. When we see the killing later in the movie, we are aware of what drives Derek; we see the killing in a different context, and it is still as shocking and terrifying as the first time.

The other very disturbing sequence in the film is an attack, by Derek and his gang, on an Asain-owned supermarket. Though it is little more than vandalism and petty violence, the sense of reckless energy and viciousness is palpable - Kaye knows how to make an audience uncomfortable and uneasy without needing to gross them out. In some ways, he shares the same skill as Spike Lee in conveying tension and a sense of impending catastrophe.

Kaye's treatment of racism and racists is far more thoughtful than the polemic approach favoured by Lee. However, the film seems to suggest that young intelligent people (such as Derek and Danny) just need some moral guidance to cure them of their racist urges. The rest of Derek's gang are portrayed as fools, and therefore beyond redemption. This theory is somewhat undermined by the presence of Cameron, a confirmed racist who is obviously smart too. As the film concludes, the suggested real source of Derek's racist hatred is far too simplistic and naive, and it ignores the obvious tension arising from the natural conflict between culturally separate groups (white and black working class neighbourhoods). Another flaw in the movie is the depiction of Derek's conversion :- as someone who hates black people enough to kill two men for a triviality, his change of heart in prison is unconvincing. The film may be naive in its beliefs but it is still an infinitely better insight into the minds of racists than crudely drawn rubbish such as Betrayed.

There was some controversy before this movie was released when the director (Kaye) claimed that Edward Norton had used his Hollywood influence to have the final cut of the movie changed so that Norton would get more scenes. If any scenes seem superfluous, they don't include those involving either Norton or Furlong, who have each delivered their best performances to date in their respective careers. Likewise, Kaye's direction announces the arrival of a serious and powerful talent.

This (extraordinarily long) review offers much of the very same things as the first, with a few notable exceptions. Both films praise the outstanding performances of Edward Norton (Derek Vinyard) and his ‘brother’ Edward Furlong (Danny Vinyard), claiming that it was their acting that essentially brought the film to life and made the incredible impact it had on its audience possible. Both reviews also praise the movie’s message as a whole, with the latter of the two articles offering more details and insight into the imagery and symbolism of the film. The second film, however, puts more emphasis on the director Tony Kaye, and his role in achieving this masterpiece. He also does something the previous author does not; he explains the impact that the film had on its creators. He goes into a brief summary of the director’s (Tony Kaye’s) editing of the film, and how they affected the final product.

Best Youtube AMV, period.

I Speak of Poetry

1) When Langston Hughes wrote the masterpiece ‘The Negro Speaks of Rivers, he was sure to pick rivers that would make a desired impact on his readers. His first line states that these rivers are ‘older than the flow of human blood in human veins’, which is true in both respects. These rivers were here long before humans were, and when we finally did arrive, provided the lifelines for civilization as a whole. These specific rivers, however, had a very significant meaning for African Americans in particular, from the Nile River that cradled one of the most famous and advanced African civilizations (the Egyptians), to the muddy Mississippi, which saw their burdens under slavery in the new world.

2) Wow, this is a lot of questions! Alright, when the speaker says that he is the ‘darker brother’, he simply means to point out the fact that he is an African American, but still very much a part of the human family. He eats in the kitchen because he is considered a second class citizen during this time, inferior to his ‘lighter brothers’ and therefore meant to be concealed from the rest. He says ‘he’ll eat at the table tomorrow’ because he believes that in due time (not necessarily tomorrow in the literal sense), his oppressors will realize that he is indeed a person, and deserves to be treated as no less. The title makes the point that ‘negros’ are, too, Americans, and have earned the right of the nation’s respect.

3) The Harlem Renaissance was meant to glorify and celebrate all types of African Americans, giving them all an uplifting voice when there was previously none. This poem, Mulatto, doesn’t seem to do that, as it’s numerous racial slurs and insults to the mixed and black race seem to have the exact opposite effect. Black power advocates like W.E.B. Du Bois was in no means unjustified in objecting to this poem.

5) In his poem, ‘Note on Commercial Theater‘, Hughes objects to black culture being absorbed by whites during the Harlem Renaissance and the seemingly dependant lifestyles of blacks on whites. During the Harlem Renaissance, most African American writers had to get published through white publishing houses, and they gained the largest audiences while performing music in Caucasian clubs. He felt that blacks had to be dependant on themselves to truly succeed. This is still relevant today, especially in terms of music. Hip Hop and R&B have long been the brainchild for blacks, yet it has been absorbed into the mainstream white community, where they are the biggest consumers of it.

6) Because he feels that although we still have African roots and the blood of Africa running actively through our veins, we need to identify as Americans first and foremost. Poems like ‘I, too’ only solidify this belief that we are now a part of this country, and it is permanently imbedded into our collective identities.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1) harlot

For the Sake of Arguement...

"Well, you know whut dey say ‘uh white man and uh nigger woman is defreest thing on earth.’ Dey do as dey please." (Chapter19, pg 181)

According the African American men speaking above, white men and black women are free from the restraints and expectations that other subgroups are forced to abide by. White men, being from both the superior race and sex, enjoy the privileges of doing what they want to who they please without having to worry about trifle consequences, as there is no higher human to whom they would have to answer. Black women, in contrast, are deemed the lowliest of the subdivisions, both pathetically inferior in sex and race. Because of their alleged weakness, they seemed to receive an inordinate amount of mercy from their oppressors, much like parent would dispatch to a young child.

This is the logic of the black men in the novel, but, historically speaking, was it accurate? Did the white man and the black women enjoy more freedom than the rest?

Well, the former statement could obviously be backed up with the barest knowledge about world history and a bit of common sense; the past has shown us, whether it be through the Crusaders, Conquistadors, or the Klansmen, that white men have often taken what they wanted with little regard to the imprint it leaves on others, and came away completely unscathed. They have long been the sole determiners of morality in this world, bending and stretching their ideals to fit those of their actions. Only fools stood in the way of this all-powerful group, especially the negro race, to which it spelled out a death sentence in most cases.

Black woman, however, did not deserve the accusations of the aforementioned black gossipers. By virtue of being both a racial minority and the "weaker" sex, black women had it worst of all and were essentially the bottom of the social totem pole. Just as Nanny once claimed, they have been both the crutch of their men and the mule of the whites, often bearing the burdens and the scorn of both unflinchingly. They were the sturdy glue that held together the seams of the black community, keeping the great quilt of their lives from unraveling layer by layer. They enjoyed no unjust freedoms, as the men above claimed, but were, in most cases, shackled by the chains of condescendence and injustice that were place upon them by nearly every other group. This is the real truth that was often cast aside by people like the men in this novel, and something that would have served them well to recognize.

Money: America's One True Religion

For as long as long as we humans have bartered and bargained with coinage, there have been countless proverbs on the matter, from the familiar “money can’t buy happiness’ adage of our mothers to the still more true “ Money often costs too much’. Although it is true that the following money has invoked in this world can rival that of any leading religion, it would in fact be false to claim that money is the root of all evil, as our forefathers have told us time and time again. Indeed, it is not money, but the lack of money and what people do to achieve it that’s detrimental to our society. Money itself is neutral, a simple tool that does the bidding of its master and nothing more, yet it is our favorite scapegoat when we lead ourselves down a path of destruction in the quest for it. This distinction is crucial in the understanding of Americans and modern society, and we would do well to remember it.

With that said, there is still no denying the fact that Americans today are indeed far too consumed by the notion of the "American dream" We are trained from birth to not become productive citizens for the sake of bettering the world around us, but for the selfish purpose of attaining profitable careers and fattening our own bank accounts. We are engulfed in the world of consumerism from the very jump, forever on a mission to earn more to buy more of the things that advertisers and big-name companies have convinced us we need. We have become the much scorned drug addicts in a sense, desperately reaching and grasping for that monetary high that seems so close to us at the time, but will remain eternally out of our reach.

This thirst for the dollar has another side effect, the neatly classified social classes in which we desperately cling to and identify ourselves by. The upper tier of society consists of the wealthy and powerful few, the ones in which most of the middle tier Americans place upon a pedestal and frantically try to become. There are measured not by their intellect or their moral fiber, but buy their status and possessions, something Lapham does and excellent job in pointing out. “The visible signs of wealth testify to an inward state of grace, and without at least some of these talismans posted in one’s house or on one’s person an American loses all hope of demonstrating to himself the theorem of his happiness”

The sad truth of the matter is, there never has, and never will be, a such thing as ‘just enough’ money; we, not only as Americans, but humans as a species, will always search for more and be forever short, a trait that will keep us firmly planted on the path of devastation and tragedy.

Of Faults and Fallacies

1) Edward Koch’s thesis in support of the death penalty was that the death penalty simply "helps to affirm" the sacredness of life itself, even if this is done by taking a life in the process. He backs this claim up by various facts and statistics about the possibilities of a murderer repeating his crimes, and the probability of a man being wrongfully executed. Koch asks the reader to agree with the idea that capitol punishment is a just and necessary practice to punish perpatrators of the most henous of murder crimes.

2) Koch used the time-old assertion that the death penalty served as a successful deterent towards violent crimes, namely murder. He does not, however, back this claim up with hard evidence, but instead depends on the infamous 'if only' arguement. '...Had the death penalty been a real possibility in the minds of these murderers, they might well have stayed their hand. They might have shown moral awareness before their victims died, and not after. He uses this logic to back up his original thesis of Humarabi-like punishments, putting various logical appeals in the article to lamenate his cry for eye-for-an-eye justice.

1) No. As said as it is to say, Koch seems to genuinely believe that taking the life of someone will somehow justify the crime, or avenge that victim. While it wouldn't be correct to say that he was impassioned exactly, he appears to battle the so called fallacies he brings up in the article whole-heartedly, a fact that I find discouraging to say the least. It would be nice to think that this was just a political ploy, that he was just repeating those time-worn lines to please the bloodthirsty American public, but I do not honestly believe that is the case here. The fact that he makes his history as a public servant known ('During my 22 years of public service....as a district leader, councilman, congressman, and mayor) seems as just an establishment of ethos, not of a shameless plug to get voters on his side come election day; he is genuinely ignorant of the faults in his logic.

2) I feel as though Koch expects his audience to either be hostile or apathetic to the issue of capital punishment, which is illustrated in his unyielding attempts to woo his audience over to the side of the electric chair. He addresses nearly every objection an anti-death citizen could have, leading me to believe that he anticipated some retorts to be brought up among his audience. It is equally clear, however, that he fully expected each and every dissident voice to be silence when confronted with his 'evidence' and logic. He even ends the article with a tactic probably meant to sink even the most liberal of readers; he guilts them into believing his blood for blood ideals by having the sin of the crime thrust upon them, saying that by refusing to adhere to these barbaric and outdated policies, they are encouraging more murder and killing the victims twice. It is shameless, tasteless, and, unfortunatly, it probably persuaded even more people than he intended.

3) He places the responsibilites of the vote into their hands, making sure that they know they have the power to make capital punishment the ultimate justice throughout the country. If there are any readers still left unconvinced, however, he then essentially places the blame of every homicide commited in the country on their heads, a blatant fallacy if I've ever seen one.

1) emotional and rational:" A study at M.I.T. showed that based on 1970 homicide rates, a person who lived in a large American city ran a greater risk of being murdered that an American soldier in World War II ran of being killed in combat" This both plays on the readers' fears and love of facts.

I myself was uninspired by the article and its arguements, but if I were to approach this with the completely unbiased mind of an apathetic American, the emotional appeals would probably play the biggest role in turning me pro-capital punishment. He plays on the readers feelingings like a true pro, inspiring a sense of indignation and terror that can be very hard to counter. And although the rational appeals were faulty and far-reaching at very best, he seemed to depend less on ethical appeals overall, making it the weakest device by far.

2) He purposely paints the two convicted murderers, Robert Lee Willie and Joseph Carl Shaw, as mildly apologetic but irrationally defiant, batting away their pleas for public awareness as if they were merely knats in the breeze. He quoted them as saying that by ending their lives with as much callousness and apathy as could be expected from the very 'cold-blooded' killers they were condemning, they were essentially no better that they were. In other words, they acknowledged their actions as regretable; now, it was time for the government to come to same conclusions. Not so, says Koch, who feels that the government (which is run by people) has the higher authority on the lives it governs, and they have every right to commit the crime in which they were punishing.

3) Personally, I found the counter-arguement to the barbarism claim as unmoving as the rest of the article, especially since it employs such god-awful analogies and slippery-slope fallacies. His claim that 'one does not have to like the death penalty in order to support it any more than one much like radical surgery, radiation, or chemo-therapy to find necessary these attempts at curing cancer' is incredibly faulty, which he even admits to a few sentences afterwards, especially since the death penalty has never been proven as an effective deterent, and certainly not the treatment, of murder. He tries to use the something as universally painful as cancer to stress a point that was backed up by only pretty ideals and quotable nonsense, and much like his logic, this arguement fell well short of being anything near convincing.

4) Luis Vera- "Yeah, I shot her. She knew me, and I knew I wouldn't go to the chair". This example is used to sqash out any sympathy felt for these future cadavers, as well as to prove his point that murderers only kill because believed there own lives will not be ended.

Robert Lee Willie- 'Mr. Willie had previously been convicted of aggravated rape, aggravated kidnapping, and the murders of a Louisiana deputy and a man from Missouri' and Joseph Carl Shaw- 'Mr. Shaw commited another murder a week before the two for which he was executed, and admitted mutilating the body of the 14-year old girl he killed. He used these examples to illustrate his point that the only suitable punishment for murderers is murder, or else they'll live to kill again. Nevermind that these are probably extremely isolated cases, considering the fact that, by the statistic that Mr.Koch himself included in the article, only a tiny minority, seven percent, have had previous murder arrests.

Lemuel Smith- 'Who, while serving four life sentences , lured a woman corrections officer into the chaplain's office and strangled her.' He used this to prove that a mere lifetime rotting in prison is not the proper punishment, that death is needed to solve the murder problem once and for all.