Skip to main content

For those that claim the movie "42" is nothing but "liberal propaganda..."

After seeing the new movie 42 this past week, I decided to read what people had to say about it via IMDb.com, and was often disappointed with what I read.

The longest threads started with a claim that the film was nothing but "liberal propaganda," that it was another "Hollywood, anti-white person" movie which was overloaded with exaggerations and short on facts. Now, while I'll be the first to admit that films based on true stories can often times be "Hollywoodized" - meaning some facts are substituted with box office-boosting material, these films also contain an element of history.

It seems that many people on the far-right of the political spectrum have an almost dismissive attitude toward racism. They either feel it's no longer a problem today or that it was never as big of a problem as many on the left (you know, historians) have made it out to be. They also tend to feel that minorities in this country often times use racism as an excuse for their problems. While I can't argue with the notion that racism is less prevalent today than during Jackie Robinson's time or that some minorities may, on occasion, use racism as an excuse, I also think it's ridiculous to not believe racism is still a problem today, was incredibly worse decades ago, or to believe that every time a minority calls out another for racism, he or she is using it as an excuse.

I think what often times happens is that these individuals seem to look at things from a just-today perspective and have either convinced themselves or been convinced by another that they (white people, white men in particular) are the ones lacking equal rights in this country. From affirmative-action to food stamps to Medicaid to special scholarships, minorities and African-Americans, in particular, are seen by many of these far-right Caucasians as being lazy takers whom have been handed more rights than they. They tend to neglect history and mumble to themselves, "We're all on a level-playing field today. Well, we should be. They're the ones who have all these extra rights - things handed to them. We're the majority in this country and are treated like a minority!"

While we can debate on the usefulness of programs in today's world such as affirmative-action, food stamps, Medicaid, and certain scholarships all we'd like, the real question these far-right individuals need to ask themselves is, "Why are there such programs in place?" This brings us back to history and the film I saw last week.

No pun is intended here, but many of these far-right individuals are black-and-white thinkers. When they see the first African-American baseball player being shown hate and vitriol by white Americans due to the color of his skin, they see it as more of an attack on white people than anything else. Perhaps some are embarrassed by how things were at that time. Maybe some refuse to believe things were ever that bad. Another possibility is that they hold similar views to the racists portrayed in the film and out of guilt, utilize projection to divert attention away from that. In any case, as is often the case, I don't understand this black-and-white thinking. Yes, Jackie Robinson, being the first African-American player in the Major Leagues, faced racism to an extent not seen prior or following his time in Major League Baseball, however, who gave him the opportunity to play for the Brooklyn Dodgers? Branch Rickey, who happened to be white. Also, while many white Americans may not have believed Jackie Robinson belonged in the Major Leagues due to his skin color, there were many who were pulling for him as well.

What I think many of these far-right individuals are losing sight of is the fact that history doesn't have black or white bias. It provides us documented accounts of what brought us here today, hopeful that when we learn about our mistakes from the past, we will be less apt to repeating them. Unfortunately, if we neglect history entirely, we'll be unaware of said mistakes, and be more prone to making them again. Whether some want to believe it or not, African-Americans were slaves in this country at one point and have had to fight for each and every individual right they could muster, in an attempt to be treated as equals. This is why some of those before-mentioned programs exist - to try and level the playing field as much as possible. While some of these far-right individuals may neglect history and say, "Affirmative-action is proof that they (African-Americans) have more rights than we do (whites)!," some African-Americans may counter, "Remember the time when you were our masters? Anyway, let's get back to talking about us having more rights than you..."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"