“American History X” (1998) is a Hollywood film where Edward Norton leads a gang of skinheads in Venice Beach in Los Angeles. But then after serving three years in prison he sees the light and tries to save his younger brother from becoming a skinhead.
The part after he gets out of prison is in colour, the part before is told in black-and-white flashbacks.
A neo-Nazi Stacy Keach plays the Bad Angel of Racist Hate (based on Tom Metzger). Avery Brooks, a black teacher Norton had in high school, plays the Good Angel of Reason and Truth. The two battle for his soul.
After Norton’s father is killed by a black drug dealer, Keach uses Norton’s anger at blacks to have him start a skinhead gang. Young whites quickly join: they are sick and tired of living in fear of the black and Mexican gangs that have moved into “their” neighbourhood.
Norton tells them that America is Venice Beach writ large: blacks and Mexicans are destroying “our” country that “hard-working Americans” have built. They are “parasites” and free-loaders that the government unjustly spends billions on.
One night two black armed robbers come to his house to take his car. Norton shoots them both dead. The judge gives him three years in prison for “voluntary manslaughter” – but would have given him life if he had known the whole truth about how he killed them (the infamous curb scene).
In prison Norton assumes whites are his friends and blacks and Mexicans are his enemies. He expects blacks to beat him up, even kill him. But they never do. Instead it is whites who give him a hard time and in the end rape him.
Avery Brooks, his old high school history teacher, comes to visit him in prison. Brooks said he once was full of anger and blamed other races too. But then he saw that it was not making his life any better. He leaves Norton some books.
We never find out what those books are, but Norton comes out of prison a new man. He puts his skinhead days behind him. But now he must save his 16-year-old brother from going down the same bad road….
I do not know enough about skinheads to know how true-to-life the film is. Norton’s arguments sound more like the Republican Party than, say, Stormfront. Even Hillary Clinton, a Democrat, used “hard-working Americans” in just the way he does.
What separates him from ordinary Republicans is not his thinking but the Nazi images on his body and on his bedroom wall, his willingness to use the n-word and violence. A wolf in wolf’s clothing.
The film plays it safe by condemning the sort of racism that most whites have agreed is wrong since the 1960s – the racism of open hatred and violence. It leaves untouched the sort of racism most whites still practise, the respectable, more subtle racism of looking down on those who are different and not questioning the built-in advantages society gives to whites.
See also:
I love this movie. But yes it does play it safe as you said. And in a way, it does everyone a disservice. Whites can watch this movie and say to themselves “I’m not like that, so I must not be racist.” Also the portrayal of racism as evil hatred makes it impossible for any white person to acknowledge that they have anything like that in themselves. Acknowledging your racism = admitting you are a bad person. Therefor hardly any WP does so, to themselves or anyone else.
LikeLike
Ok movie, but not a great one. If you want to see more nazi skinheads, check out Russell Crowe’s Romper Stomper. Tim Roth did also a great performance as a skin head in a movie whose name I have forgotten. Scary shit. Much more cynical and perhaps realistic take on this subject.
Originally the skinheads were not nazis. They were working class hooligans in England. Short hair saved money, heavy boots too. They were prone to violence, boozing and ska music. Originally there were even black skinheads.
National Front made an orchestrated effort to hijack the skinheads for their purposes and portrayed them as racist nazis. Media jumped the band wagon and some years later it became “the truth”.
However, during the second coming of the skinheads, in late 1970’s, there were once again pakistani and black skinheads as well as there had been in the 60’s. There were even some left wing skinheads known as red skins. This time around the nazi label was already in the medias bag and they moved on: few years later the word skinhead was the same as neo nazi.
Lately there has been some indications that the original skinheads are coming back: working class and non political, and yet still prone to violence and football and beer.
LikeLike
My (Black) then-roommate made me watch this with her 2 years ago because she said she really liked it, and it was so boring. I couldn’t tell you a thing that happened, besides the horrific curb scene. I don’t even remember the high school teacher! Thumbs down.
LikeLike
sam,
the skin heads didn’t progress the same in the US. Maybe not all political, but certainly thought to be disenfranchise by blacks, then leaned toward more white power ideology (KKK) rather than neo-Nazi. Then more organized association with neo-Nazism. I think the movie was in a way making white America more aware of the extreme political elements developing in this country. David Duke was beginning to make the KKK mainstream.
LikeLike
@Jason Whites can watch this movie and say to themselves “I’m not like that, so I must not be racist.”
I very much enjoyed this movie and my reaction was “My god, there but for the grace of God go I.” I don’t think that it’s POSSIBLE to be white, to have lived as a teenager in the 1980s and to be working class and NOT have that feeling.
I very much disagree that the film shows that racism is the result of some inherent evil. It shows that a relatively normal white family can generate fascists, given the proper bad breaks and lack of political knowledge.
I know quite a bit about skins and the film was reasonably true-to-life here (though of course exagerated, as Hollywood always is). It’s POINT was that a very, very thin line seperates them from Republicans. Give a Republican family a sharp economic downturn and what you’re liable to end up with is something that very much resembles a fascist.
When I saw this film, it brought me right back to the many late ’80s rumbles and almost-rumbles I got involved in against skins. There was a time in the ’80s that if you were an anarchopunk in certain U.S. cities, you went around in bunches or risked hospitalization from the Doc-Marten’s-with-white-bootlaces-crowd.
Romper Stomper, IIRC, also showed the original polyracial roots of the skin movement, and showed that the sort of ignorant patriotic ideology the movement espoused couldn’t escape, ultimately, from a discourse of blood and heritage. So I have my doubts about the “come back” today.
LikeLike
“I very much enjoyed this movie and my reaction was “My god, there but for the grace of God go I.” I don’t think that it’s POSSIBLE to be white, to have lived as a teenager in the 1980s and to be working class and NOT have that feeling.
Exactly. People who have “that feeling” don’t consider themselves racist because they aren’t tattooing swastikas on their chests and curb stomping POC.
LikeLike
I agree with Thad’s take. To me the movie shows how seductive racial hate can be to an angry young man like the younger brother, and how the “acceptable racism” that we see in many Repubs can be the thin end of the wedge.
I also thought Norton’s performance was quite amazing; anyone who has seen Norton’s real-life self – he comes across as a slightly awkward and nervous fellow – would be amazed at the transformation into his character here.
LikeLike
@ sam:
there is a great movie from a few years back called “This is England” which follows a boy who joins a skinhead gang in the late 70s. The backdrop is the transition of the skins from a multiracial bunch of rebels who love their ska and Stax soul, to a nasty bunch of white supremacists.
LikeLike
Exactly. People who have “that feeling” don’t consider themselves racist because they aren’t tattooing swastikas on their chests and curb stomping POC.
Jason, you don’t understand. That take is IDENTIFYING. The idea that it COULD have been you.
People who ahev that sort of feeling aren’t saying “Hey, I’m not racist because I don’t have a swastika on my chest”.
Actually, that swastika tat scene reminded me of a friend of mine, Cricket. He had been a skin before becoming anti-racist and had to figure out what to do with all those swastika tats he had. So that scene really hit a bell with me.
Ah! ES, it was “This is England” I was thinking about, not “Romper Stomper”.
LikeLike
I can’t speak to the realism of the skinhead depictions, but I thought his conversion in prison was undeveloped at best. For such a heavily moralizing film, there is no usable message for the audience. IIRC, his splitting with the aryan gang was because they were cooperating with non-whites in the drug trade. In other words, they were *insufficiently principled* racists. Only when he breaks party ranks over this issue is he raped, at which point he is only reacting selfishly to his own injury. What is the lesson here? We should hope more nazis rape each other in prison? Abagond already pointed out the unnamed books – as though any book will do, since we the audience already are perfectly enlightened as to the error of his ways. That just leaves some friendly banter with his black coworker. Raunchy male bonding can overcome racism? In the end we have no way to understand his racial transcendence other than butthurt at his fellow white people. Not a particularly inspiring film.
LikeLike
thanks a lot for this post. i also found the something slightly wrong about the movie, although i couldn’t express it until i read this. i guess partly it’s juts disturbing that a movie about a struggle against racism still has to star a white man (although i agree with ESensation that Norton is excellent).
i remember also not being comfortable with the portrayal of the black guy who ‘converts’ Norton’s character (the one he did the laundry with, and who ends up protecting him from all the inmates of colour who know who and what he is and want to smash him). he kind of struck me as a ‘magical negro’ character. his willingness to befriend and even protect (possibly at his own risk) a violent white supremacist struck me as superhumanly generous and tolerant. the movie was supposed to be ‘gritty’ and ‘confronting’ and yet to me it offered this extremely fairytale portrayal of racism – ‘oh, all these naughty racists need is a nice black friend! that will show them the error of their ways!’
no no no. thanks abagond
LikeLike
I love this post too. And the comments.
But Sam, why do you recommend Romper Stomper? It was a Guinevere-and-Lancelot-style love story. The only non-Anglo characters vanished after being savagely beaten right at the start, never to be mentioned again.
LikeLike
@ bingregory:
right, i’d forgotten about that! (for some reason your post hadn’t come through when i was writing).
‘unprincipled in their racism’ ….. yeah…. what?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bingregory’s comment was in moderation because it had the word “Nazi”. So he and Rayuela made the same point independently about the cause of Norton’s transformation being something of a mystery.
LikeLike
@maruja: I did not watch Romper Stomper that way. For me it was a protrait of the guys head, how he sees the world: chaotic and violent, desperate and hopeless.
@eurasian: This is England is about the second wave of skinheads back in the late 70’s and it is based on the expereiences of the director. And it does tell the story how bunch of few friends turned into racist skinheads. Decent movie also! I liked the kid.
But what was that Tim Roths movie? I think it was early 1980’s or something like that. He has a small swastika tattooed on his forehead in that. Very chilling performance of a young man who has nothing but hate in him. Very dark bit.
I have a friend who was a skinhead back in the late 70’s and early 80’s but he let his hair grow and threw his boots to the closet to gather dust because the scene became racist here too. He liked the style and music, ska and rocksteady, raising hell and partying, but did not like the ideological turn. I guess the nazi skinhead thing came over here from Sweden in 80’s.
First finnish skinheads met english ones in the late 70’s while wisiting there in holidays or while taking popular language courses over there (they were pretty much the same as holidays even though the kids were supposed to study english). Friend of mine brought the first albums of the Specials, Madness, Selecter and Beat from there.
The nazi skinhead thing was at its biggest here in 90’s during our economical depression. Some gangfights between skinheads and somalis made it to the headlines. Since then there has been no news that I’ve seen.
LikeLike
heres the tim roth movie Made in Britain:
Notice he is stealing the car with a black kid and also sniffin glue with a black kid.
LikeLike
@rayuela
For such a heavily moralizing film, there is no usable message for the audience. IIRC, his splitting with the aryan gang was because they were cooperating with non-whites in the drug trade. In other words, they were *insufficiently principled* racists. Only when he breaks party ranks over this issue is he raped, at which point he is only reacting selfishly to his own injury. What is the lesson here? We should hope more nazis rape each other in prison?
Here’s the lesson, and I’m surprised you can’t figure it out…
Norton’s character was motivated by things that motivate A LOT of people, including blacks: unemployment, drugs overruning his neighborhood, the sensation that as a young man he had no future. His revolt against those things was a SINCERE revolt. But built as his revolt was upon extreme political ignorance and the blood/heritage politics of the American middle class (black or white), the only ideology which made sense to him was fascism (an ideology which is extremely attractive, even to many of the people posting here for many of the same reasons that it ensnares Norton’s character).
But whether or not he’s a fascist, he’s a sincere fascist. He actually believes that fascism can cure the country’s ills. When he’s in prison, he gets to see that to many of the movement’s leaders, fascism is simply just a money-making scheme. He revolts over that and leaves the movement over THAT, not over his rape. His rape is just additional humiliation tossed on top of his disillusionment.
Abagond already pointed out the unnamed books – as though any book will do, since we the audience already are perfectly enlightened as to the error of his ways.
Given the fact that Americans seem to treat any formal intellectual development as ipso-facto cause for suspicion, I think just saying “books” is actually quite valid here. What Norton’s character needs is to read BOTH SIDES of an issue and stop reading only the stuff that agrees with him. That’s the point of that scene. The titles of the books are immaterial. What the director is talking about here is intellectual development IN GENERAL. He’s not trying to push some sort of specific seven step program for reforming fascists.
And let’s be real: you and Abagond would criticize him if he gave you the titles of any books. Then your criticism would be “Oh, sure! As if [book X] had magical transforming powers! Right!”
In the end we have no way to understand his racial transcendence other than butthurt at his fellow white people.
Wow. Not only is that one of the most obtuse criticisms that I’ve ever read about this film, it also – apparently intentionally – tries to transform prison rape into a cute little internet meme.
How droll! Hur, hur, hur.
LikeLike
“What is the lesson here? We should hope more nazis rape each other in prison?”
It seemed like he had a very strict worldview in which white=good, POC=bad. That view was challenged in prison. Remember, the reason he became a skinhead in the first place was because his father was killed by a POC, so his racism was based on a personal injury from the beginning. The rest of it was just “They took our jobs!” In prison he realizes that a persons racial groups has nothing to do with their character, and his fire goes out.
LikeLike
Whoops! Sorry Rayuela. That last post was directed at Bingregory. this one’s for you…
i guess partly it’s juts disturbing that a movie about a struggle against racism still has to star a white man (although i agree with ESensation that Norton is excellent).
The movie was about how fascism lurks just below the shallow facade of white, middle class, suburban life.
Now, if you can tell me how one can make a film about THAT without putting a white actor in there somewhere, I’d love to hear it.
i remember also not being comfortable with the portrayal of the black guy who ‘converts’ Norton’s character (the one he did the laundry with, and who ends up protecting him from all the inmates of colour who know who and what he is and want to smash him). he kind of struck me as a ‘magical negro’ character.
This is a legitimate gripe. The character does just sort of fall down from the ceiling, doesn’t he?
However, the gripe brings up another point: people aren’t paying attention to what the film actually said.
First of all, it’s a series of things which changes the character’s PoV, the main one being the discovery that the movement he’s dedicated himself body and soul to is a shuck that uses young idiots like him as cannon-fodder. I think the meeting with Guy Torry’s character was just supposed to show that for the first time, Norton’s charcter saw a black man as “just another guy, someone like me”. It was supposed to be a part of his transformation, not the source of it.
Finally, what “conversion” is this?
Norton’s character is not completely convinced by Brooks’ character’s teachings and claims he isn’t. And he shouldn’t be: he’s mulling some very complex arguments through and wieghing them against what he thinks he already knows. His original goal is simply to save his brother from the same kind of literal and figurative raping that he’s gone through and that’s IT. When he gets out, he still thinks he can declare a sort of wtahcful neutrality with the fascist movement. He’s hardly an anti-racist. Brooks more-or-less convinces him, right at the end, that he needs to do more than that. His brother’s death, however, really drives the message home: you can’t preach hate like he did and then walk away from it with no consequences.
The last thing Norton’s character says is right on: “Oh my God, what have I done?” Not “the blacks”, not “society”, not “the skins”, not the “nazis”: “hat have I done”? So he’s taking personal responsability for his acts.
THAT’S the real point of his conversion, not meeting Torry or even being raped in prison.
LikeLike
I have to say this: almost every African American who I’ve met who’s seen this film dislikes it, apparently on principle. Why on principle? Because – up to now – every criticism I’ve seen of it is pretty much specious. (Torry as “magical negro” is probably the best criticism I’ve seen so far, but even that’s overdone because it’s certainly not Norton’s interaction with Torry that brings about a “conversion”.)
So I’m wondering why a very powerful film about how fascism lurks beneath white middle class american life draws such powerful knee-jerk reactions from African Americans, especially as this film pretty much confirms the Black Panther/Weatherman thesis of American political existence.
Could it be that black Americans aren’t willing to accept the fact that fascists – as stupid and dangerous as they are – aren’t some alien invaders from dimension X, motivated by deeply rooted hatreds which reach back to the 16th century, but are more often depoliticized and confused kids from down the street? Or is it that African Americans think that casting fascists in this light – a realistic light – is somehow an attempt to make them less menacing? Every white punk I know who saw that film found it MORE menacing precisely because it showed how “normal” everyday white guys could easily be transformed into racist, fascist killers, with just a little nudge here and there.
LikeLike
@ Thad
“The movie was about how fascism lurks just below the shallow facade of white, middle class, suburban life.
Now, if you can tell me how one can make a film about THAT without putting a white actor in there somewhere, I’d love to hear it.”
This is true. And I actually found much of the depiction of the family life to be actually amazingly well done. If there were also films being made about how racism/fascism affects BLACK middle class suburban life…. You know what I’m saying.
“So I’m wondering why a very powerful film about how fascism lurks beneath white middle class american life draws such powerful knee-jerk reactions from African Americans, especially as this film pretty much confirms the Black Panther/Weatherman thesis of American political existence.”
Well. I’m not AfroAmerican. But my problem was not the portrayal of how easily the frustrations of white men turn into extreme racism. My problem was with the portrayal of how easy the transition AWAY from racism is. I don’t think a disillusionment with the fascist organization necessarily leads to a rejection of racism.
I think its dangerous to give WP the idea that it is all so easy as that.
LikeLike
My problem was with the portrayal of how easy the transition AWAY from racism is.
Wait a minute…
Easy?
The guy spends several years in prison, discovers that he’s been a dupe, get’s raped by his “brothers”, only then reluctantly comes to the conclusion that perhaps there is more to the world than has hitherto been in his philosophy and THEN loses his brother.
And you call that an easy transition?
Jeezis….
But to tell the truth, I’ve seen much easier transitions. My friend Cricket, for example, simply started meeting Mexicans and blacks that he found to be cool people and started reading the anti-racist classics.
I think that fascism, thankfully, and racism can actually be pretty easily countered, given a small amount of good will on the part of the person who needs to learn.
LikeLike
“Wait a minute…
Easy?
The guy spends several years in prison, discovers that he’s been a dupe, get’s raped by his “brothers”, only then reluctantly comes to the conclusion that perhaps there is more to the world than has hitherto been in his philosophy and THEN loses his brother.
And you call that an easy transition?
Jeezis….”
hahahaha. good call. i guess like i said before i saw those events in his life as disillusioning him with the fascist organization he had been part of – which i don’t think, unfortunately, necessarily leads (in a vast majority of cases) to being able to question his racism.
LikeLike
I guess part of what rubs wrong about this film is that it is fiction masquerading as some kind of gritty, realistic sk_nhead documentary. If this was the real life of an actual sk_nhead who went through these experiences and emerged a better man then I’d have to accept it at face value. But since it is a fiction, it just comes off as way too pat and hollow. Is there such a movement of sk_nheads wherein drug dealing to get by in prison would be some kind of unforgivable moral compromise, that would cause him to realign his entire life? Is that a thing? Obviously it isn’t or the director isn’t sure we’ll catch the subtle point there and that’s why Norton has to get raped. It’s a grotesque device to exonerate his sins and transform him instantly into a sympathetic figure. Now he’s a victim. The director uses the horrific violence of the curb scene and the rape scene as a shortcut to adding depth to story and character – there’s no way to watch the movie and not see those two moments as balancing each other. See the depth of his evil! See him suffer for his sins! But where does he display any real virtue? Where does he make a moral choice? Where does he struggle with his new convictions or even demonstrate that he has found any? Lay that beside another 90′s “X” movie about prison, race and redemption and this one shrivels up into insignificance.
On preview: It’s not that he doesn’t suffer for choosing evil, it’s that he never *chooses good* and I think that’s what rayuela means by the easy transition. Yes he suffers a series of unfortunate events, but where is his *will* to the good?
LikeLike
I guess part of what rubs wrong about this film is that it is fiction masquerading as some kind of gritty, realistic sk_nhead documentary.
Hmm. I never saw it as a documentary, nor did anyone I know. Nor did the director play it that way, as far as I know. So why is this a problem, exactly?
Is there such a movement of sk_nheads wherein drug dealing to get by in prison would be some kind of unforgivable moral compromise, that would cause him to realign his entire life?
I’ve seen wierder and smaller s*** reorientate people’s lives. In fact, I saw something much smaller reorientate the life of a skin, so…
It’s a grotesque device to exonerate his sins and transform him instantly into a sympathetic figure.
If you see the world as essentially divided between victimizers and victims – in short, if you’ve internalized the fascist belief – then yes, you might believe that.
…there’s no way to watch the movie and not see those two moments as balancing each other.
I watched the movie several times and never saw those two moments as balancing each other. Not even close.
But where does he display any real virtue? Where does he make a moral choice?
When he decides to confront his old “comrades” in order to warn them off of his brother.
You’ll notice that you presume that he’s an anti-racist with deep new convictions. The film doesn’t say that at all. In fact, the film has Norton saying to Brooks “I don’t know if I agree with what’s in those books.” So yes, it would be a facile conversion if Norton came out of prison ready to work for the Southern Poverty Law Center, but that is definitely not the case. He comes out seeking to make a little change: get his brother out of the movement. He discovers that things aren’t that simple.
So again, yeah, the film sucks IF you presume it to be saying things that its director is not saying. At all.
As for “the will to good”, frankly, I think that’s a pretty Christian view of life and history, one which I don’t share.
LikeLike
LOVED THIS FILM — love Ed Norton (one of the greatest actors out there).
Don’t agree with you that this movie plays it safe by only condemning the racism of the 60s. Racism is racism — doesn’t change over time. I am sure that the point of this film is that stereotyping and dividing is wrong no matter the time. That’s why the attack on affirmative action is discussed in the film.
LikeLike
In my humble opinion the film failed to show the political subtleties that lead to the proliferation of fascist ideas.
It’s a single case story. Once again a story of a “misled individual” who is solely driven by his personal twisted motives. As if the entire USA only consists of individual motivations, politically speaking. Where each statistic anomaly is to be interpreted case by case. As if the entire population is assumed to be always democratically minded and each obvious aberration is to be regarded as a single case.
As a convicted thug and, being considered “work-shy” by true fascist standards, the character would have most likely ended up in a concentration camp in n@zi Germany. In this context, the swastika tattoo feels more like the “Haunted Mansion” in Disneyland.
While the film probably succeeds in depicting the downfall of a frustrated non-achiever looking for the scapegoats of his own shortcomings (the usual neo-n@zi profile), it fails in showing how a seemingly individual mindset, if left unaddressed, can escalate into a mass movement whose main objective is to incite hatred, prejudice and racism, promote violence, glorify “racial purity” and its expansion and ultimately wage war and genocide. It also fails in displaying the crucial role of the silent majority, the so-called honourable citizens, the mass of onlookers who are not honourable enough to stop this sort of madness.
In light of the fact how easily youths are manipulated into destructive ideas, it makes me think once again about the validity of “freedom” of speech, especially when those who can only proliferate because of this freedom are in fact the very enemies of freedom of speech once they’ve got the upper hand.
LikeLike
The last section of this implies that African-Americans aren’t/cannot be, racist. Also ignored, are the advantages that minorities in this country now have, even if they are from another country post-90’s. No pain, all gain.
The issues in the movie could’ve been about any race, creed, religion, hair color, etc. The fact that it happens to be about race, shouldn’t blind you from the fact that it could’ve been anything else. Imagine if Iceland was hit by a huge volcanic eruption and all were placed [by the US govt] there. It would be the same thing, just against that group. Same thing with the Somalians in Maine. Any abstraction of customs, laws, etc that transform a given area will have the same effect.
Logic and accuracy, please.
LikeLike
@ Thad
You said: “Torry as “magical negro” is probably the best criticism I’ve seen so far, but even that’s overdone because it’s certainly not Norton’s interaction with Torry that brings about a “conversion”
Having read all the comments, I must say a couple of other criticisms were also worth noting and certainly the quoted one by ‘rayuela’.
You have chosen to deflect from the original idea that was being conveyed by that criticism – that the character of the black guy in the prison whom Norton met was unusually generous and tolerant. Since you know what it means to be ‘to be white, to have lived as a teenager in the 1980s and to be working class’ and how one feels being like that, I presume you would also know that a black guy in that character’s shoes would have found it pretty difficult to show the kind of tolerance that he did, and that too not without misplaced and under-the-circumstances-fictitious sense of humor, in real life.
So whether or not that character catalysed the transformation of Norton is not the point here: the point is that the unrealistic (or should I say improbabilistic) character of the black guy just paints a false and inaccurate picture of the entire issue.
LikeLike
“I presume you would also know that a black guy in that character’s shoes would have found it pretty difficult to show the kind of tolerance that he did”
right on. i get nervous that this sets an impossibly high standard – puts the onus on POC to ‘jolly’ WP out of their racism with kindness, goodwill and humour.
not always possible. as we all know.
LikeLike
I just read this post about the movie American History X that Abagond did. It is an interesting post but flawed in a few ways. In his post Abagond writes about the movie “Young whites quickly join: they are sick and tired of living in fear of the black and Mexican gangs that have moved into “their” neighbourhood.” To me what is interesting is the “their”. This would lead the reader to believe this to be a racial issue. Perhaps an issue between the white people and the black people. I feel this simply implies a sense of community and unity. In this sense “their” would be a unifying force and not a dividing one. If Abagond had lived in a neighborhood for a long time and experienced many changes in neighbors he would speak in this same manner. In fact he would be correct to say the neighborhood is “theirs”. Also in the post Abagond writes “hard-working Americans” and enclosed it in quotes as a way to imply separation of whites and other non-whites. Again in my opinion it simply includes all hard working Americans. True Americans have no color because of the rich and diverse melting pot that our culture, nationality, and history have been built. And for Abagond to make such broad sweeping generalizations about the “sort of racism most whites still practise,” that does no one any good. Also to suggest that there are “built-in advantages society gives to whites” is quite preposterous. I would like to see some factual data that would support either or both of those claims. Show me the report that says most white people still practise racism or that there are some built-in advantages given to whites by society. I would like to see some facts on that one. This site does nothing to unify and simply divides and weakens humanity by simply existing to promote and propagate hate regardless of race. Promoting hate and division is wrong to do and I feel like the author knows this and is consciously deciding to do this which is the worst kind of evil. Humanity needs to unite and not divide. I hope Abagond will realize what he is doing and come to terms with his inner hatred so that we may all grow as humans with love and continual improvement toward all and each other with out exception.
LikeLike
“This would lead the reader to believe this to be a racial issue. Perhaps an issue between the white people and the black people”
aaaah… have you seen the movie? i’m *pretty sure* there was some kind of “racial issue” going on!?!
also, i don’t recommend saying ‘melting pot’. it makes you sound a bit like a knucklehead.
abagond: love not hate, ‘kay? goddit? come to terms with your inner hatred already!
LikeLike
I hope Abagond will realize what he is doing and come to terms with his inner hatred so that we may all grow as humans with love and continual improvement toward all and each other with out exception.
He can’t, you see he is suffering from gaseous anomalies reading this tripe. It precludes him from getting in touch with his ‘inner self hatred’. Besides which, if he let it all out, he would blow himself away! Don’t get me started on the fact that he is not really of this earth!
LikeLike
John in Philly:
You seem to be assuming racism is no longer a big deal. In which, case, yes, I am just creating trouble and need to come to terms with my inner hatred.
But racism does live on:
LikeLike
Oh so it is OK for blacks to renig on contracts as they did from loosing the basketball game and it is OK for blacks to steal when ever they so desire.
In Texas we have the Castle Law. Edward Norton would have walked free as he should for keeping the CRIMINALS out of his neighborhood.
American History X is a film made by JEWS to create more hate of their eternal enemy,,, the white race.
As well in the part that his father it talking about affirmitive action.. force always creates hate. Forcing blacks into white America has consequences.
With over 50,000 whites murdered by blacks and over 1 million white women having been raped by blacks, white people are waking up and saying no more.
Stop the hate and segregate.
LikeLike
@preston wiginton:
Rubbish. Please cite your sources.
LikeLike
Stop the hate and segregate.
You mean ‘stop the hate and defecate!
LikeLike
@preston wiginton:
“American History X is a film made by JEWS to create more hate of their eternal enemy,,, the white race. “
Rubbish. Please cite your sources.
LikeLike
So it’s been a while since I’ve commented here but I saw this movie for the first time recently (yeah, I know I’m late) and…wow. It blew my mind. And I am an extremely cynical person.
I believe the reason I avoided seeing it before was out of fear. I was afraid of what I would possibly see. Once again, I consider myself to be pretty jaded about life and humanity in general. But this movie haunts me. In light of all the things that have happened in the last few years…Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, James Anderson, James Byrd, and more…I realize that “American History X” still has cultural relevance almost 15 years later. I would say that is true particularly for both James Byrd and James Anderson, both of whom were definitely killed by racists for being Black, no denying that.
I wonder if Derek Vinyard is/was a real person on whom this film was based. If so, he surely had to change his identity because from my understanding, it would have been very difficult to leave the White Power movement behind just like that.
Some former skinheads and white supremacists have claimed that “American History X” is about them, but who can say? I know that some of the ones who became disillusioned and more enlightened managed to escape that life. Some of these men (and some women) have even had painful tattoo removal to erase reminders of their racist past. It won’t change what they’ve done, but it is definitely a step in the right direction.
LikeLike
@bingregory…you might not see my comment but I’ll respond anyway.
My take on it is that Derek believed that white people should stick together so when he noticed the Aryan Brotherhood dealing with the Mexican inmates, that opened his eyes to the hypocrisy.
About him being raped…there are two issues. No, make that three. The first issue is the fact that he trusted these other white men and they bonded over shared hatred of minorities, but they violated him.
The second issue is that the act of rape made him realize the sheer brutality of his actions to others before he went to prison. He was previously in a position of inflicting pain and death upon helpless minorities, and he enjoyed it. But being raped so brutally himself put him in the position of one who finally understood what it meant to suffer violence and terror. He was stripped of his power and through his pain, he learned empathy. And he decided to turn his life around by becoming a better person and also trying to deprogram the brainwashing his younger brother had undergone as well.
The third issue is that although the movie seems superficial at times in its treatment of Derek’s journey to overcoming racism, you have to understand that the Black inmate reaches him by finding things in common with him. It would be incredibly difficult to knowingly befriend a racist (and many people would question the sanity of doing so) but the guy in “American History X” does because he manages to see that there is still hope even for racist scum like Derek. He isn’t willing to write off another human being that most people would never give a chance to because of his heinous actions. This man can be looked at as a “magical Negro” and yes, his antics were clownish but he is also a positive character because his heart is open to somebody who would ordinarily have killed or hurt him given the opportunity. It takes strength to be that kind and forgiving.
They spend a lot of time working together and this is one of Derek’s first insights into a person of color as a fellow human being. It really doesn’t matter how racism is broken down, as long as positive results are achieved. Derek being raped by men with the same ideology as himself is the catalyst for change and it gives him a chance to redeem himself. It fuels a need to educate himself some more and to purge himself of hate.
Sorry my comment is so long, Abagond…this movie has given me food for thought. 🙂
LikeLike
One more comment for now, then I simply must go to sleep…;)
Derek is a prime example of how a person who is hurt and damaged, will sometimes do the same to others, creating a cycle of pain.
His racist father is killed by a Black person so to feel a sense of power over his own life, he immerses himself in hate and channels his pain into destroying the “enemy” (minorities). And in doing so, he nearly destroys himself…as we see later, his poor little brother’s redemption comes far too late.
Derek’s hate is transformed by the power of unconditional love from the least likely source, a Black man…the type of man he would have happily shot or stabbed or curb-stomped without a care in the world. It is easy to look at Lamont and see him as a simpleton but he is, in fact, a person with keen insight into the human psyche. He taps into Derek’s problem by recognizing that behind the evil actions and racist facade, there is deeply rooted pain. I think this is probably true of many racists; something inside of them hurts and the only way to deal with the pain is to hurt others. When Derek curb-stomped that guy, his rage is obviously being directed at the man who killed his father. At that point, it wasn’t really about the guy on the curb anymore, he was just a symbol of the nameless/faceless Black man who killed Derek’s dad. This is why the curb-stomping is so brutal…there is pent-up rage and pain behind the violence.
Stacey, Derek’s girlfriend, is also an interesting character because we rarely see how female racists are portrayed in film unless it is in more genteel ways like the Southern ladies of “The Help”.
I have only encountered a few women like Stacey who are openly racist in their language and behavior. Most racist women tend to be more subtle, hiding behind a veneer of politeness. I found it sad and terrifying how quickly she turned on him when he told her he wanted out of the movement. It shows how deep her brainwashing must have been, too. Their relationship was based mostly on sex and their mutual racism but with Derek’s new outlook, she suddenly hates him.
LikeLike
Great film especially the parts that the Race mixers hate.I had fun being paid to help Tony Kay make this film. The money that was made went into promoting WHITE ARYAN RESISTANCE. By the way the part played by Stacy Keach was no where close to Tom Metzgers personality. I have never been wealthy or drove expensive cars or lived in expensive houses.I never had skinhead beer bashes in my back yard.lol
LikeLike
Hmm…if this is indeed THE Tom Metzger, would I be correct in assuming that the role Stacy Keach played in the film was based on you?
From what I saw, there was no “race mixing” (as you put it) in the film…only in deleted scenes that never made it to the final production. Derek befriends a Black inmate during his stint in prison but I didn’t see much positive interaction with any other people of color in the movie.
May I ask if Derek Vinyard’s character was based on an actual person? I understand if you can’t share that information.
I agree that it is a great film, but not for the reason you stated. I had a very different reaction to it…more sad than anything.
Also, were you offended by the way you were portrayed in the movie? I don’t necessarily mean the flashy lifestyle but more like a person who preys on impressionable, weak-minded youth. That is what some so-called “White Power” recruiters are considered to be.
LikeLike
Yes Keach played me but not accurately.I do not think Derek was about a real person. I have the original script.Which was quite a bit different than the movie.I worked quite a bit with Tony Kaye on that film. I furnished about 20 skinheads to train the actors that would appear as skinheads. And I was paid quite well. Tony Kaye is a maverick Jew, I liked him . I appeared with him in a documentary about his life for the BBC. He used to drive around Hollywood with the license plate “Super Jew”. He confided quite a bit with me and I warned him to not trust New Line Cinema whom he was not aware of their activities. I told him they will screw you in the end if they can.He found out the hard way later on they did screw him and he had to sue them. Another thing that drove him crazy was that they let the Edward Norton into the editing room where he proceeded to chop up the film. Only the very top top stars in Hollywood are ever allowed in the editing room. like I said I have the original script before Norton got to it.
LikeLike
‘Derek befriends a Black inmate during his stint in prison but I didn’t see much positive interaction with any other people of color in the movie.”
I did 2 years in an Arkansas State Prison. 70% black prison.
In prison blacks rape, rob, extort.
This statement is not based on a prejudice but actual experience.
Whites do not exhibit the same behaviors.
There are hundreds of blacks in prison that raped / killed kids and are visited by family every month I have seen this. There are not however hundreds of white rapists visited every month in prison.
There is a radical muslim movement in prison with blacks. I know because one tried to stab me for joke about Muhammad.
I have read the recent studies on prisoner behavior the so called empirically derived studies and they are absolute trash.
LikeLike
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Tom…you shared lots of interesting info on the film and on Tony Kaye himself.
Yes, there seems to be a lot of truth in what you said about his conflict with New Line and also with Edward Norton. I’ve read that there were many issues behind the scenes in the process of making the film.
You’re saying that Norton did the editing? Why? The deleted scenes were very good and would have enhanced the movie, in my opinion.
And I have to laugh at the part where you said you “furnished” skinheads to train the actors…can’t even imagine what that was like.
But despite the evil things skinheads often do, I’m glad to hear that Derek might not have been based on a real person after all. I believe there are two men that claim Derek’s character in the movie was based on them; they left the white supremacist movement, I think.
LikeLike