Showing posts with label Racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Racism. Show all posts

Sunday, November 26, 2017

Review: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

It is quite rare, in this day and age, that I get to see a movie with an original story line that is so well written and directed, that I find myself truly forgetting that I am sitting in a movie theater. Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri is exactly the type of cinematic experience I recommend every movie lover and story lover enjoy.

This movie will drag you out of your seat and make you to empathize with people who are completely unlikable, laugh at things that are tragic, and make you want to hope where there is hopelessness.

Frances McDormand gives a remarkable performance of a grieving mother who cannot reconcile the past without justice. Unable to find peace, she approaches the problem just like she has approached everything else in her life - through confrontation. Her son, ex-husband, the chief of police, and an admirer; all bear the brunt of her abrasive and determined crusade to get a measure of revenge.

Woody Harrelson plays the Chief of local Police. A career lawman who has done well for himself, he is terminally ill, which is apparently the town's worst kept secret. He brings to the story the thematically relevant issue of racism among some police officers, where he shelters a deputy accused of wrongdoing. Butt he is a man of law, giving Frances McDormand's character all the latitude she is legally entitled to, despite her attack that is aimed at him.

Sam Rockwell plays the deputy who is rough around the edges. He is a brute force individual, who has been accused of racism in the past. He attempts to uphold the law and protect his boss, the chief of police at every step; even when it means pushing the envelope of what is legally allowed. He is a foul mouthed, disorganized, and nasty individual that doesn't evoke anyone's sympathy in the beginning. Yet he is key to the unfolding of the story's final chapter.

The theme of the story centers on justice and a measure of revenge. Whether it is revenge for a lost daughter, a fallen co-worker, or any other wrongdoing that a person has been subjected to; the exposure to hatred and anger are key. Throughout the entire movie, the carefully woven undertones show that if you hold on to the hatred and anger, you ultimately become the instrument of injustice - the very opposite of your initial intent.

Judging by the reaction of the theater's audience, it is my understanding that a lot of people didn't get the ending. The problem is that we, the audience, have been often exposed to movies that process everything for us right down the final meaning. It is far rarer to experience a move that leads you down the path to the finale, where all parts are aligned, and leave the finale up to the viewer's interpretation.

--------------------------------------------
SPOILERS BEYOND THIS LINE
--------------------------------------------

My interpretation of the ending is that it doesn't particularly matter whether the suspect is guilty of this particular crime or another crime. It doesn't matter whether the suspect dies or not. What matters is that Sam Rockwell's character finally found his ability to be a detective, guided by a letter from his late chief. What matters is that Frances McDormand's character knows she is not alone and that she finally has hope due to the work of a dedicated police officer. Here is what we know before the screen fades to black:

1) Frances McDormand and Sam Rockwell know that the man they are chasing is not the man responsible for the death and rape of Frances McDormand's daughter.

2) They have reconciled themselves that the man they are chasing is evil because he has committed a crime.

3) They have not finalized the decision to kill the suspect. They agree to see how things play out, to determine if he will pay for his crime with his life.

The moral of the story is that the aspect of anger and vengeance that both of these characters live with is a destructive force. It made them both chase down a man who is not responsible for the specific crime at the center of the story. Just because the man must be "guilty of something", forces both main characters to come to the brink of becoming the Judge, the Jury, and the Executioner.

The only plausible poetic unwinding version of this story leads me to believe that the execution will not occur. Whether it is Rockwell's character realizing that it is wrong to take a man's life for another crime, or McDormand's character understanding that killing a man for a different crime will not bring back her daughter; the leading towards this path ultimately is foreshadowed by the doubt in their dialogue as the screen fades to black.

A highly enjoyable cinematic experience. Highly recommended.

I give it 5 out of 5 gummy bears!!!

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Terence, Tulsa and Transparency

I am usually the first person to give police officers the benefit of the doubt. Their job is often dangerous, thankless and lacking proper compensation. Their successes and sacrifices often do not make the news, while their failures are highly scrutinized. I always plead with people to preserve the innocent until proven guilty mentality with the police officers, as they do with any other person accused of criminal conduct.

Having said that, the evidence presented by the police department regarding the events of this past Friday night surrounding the death of Terence Crutcher in Tulsa Oklahoma is overwhelmingly damning. One simply cannot defend a team of officers that do not communicate as to who is the lead in approaching the perceived threat and who is in the role of a backup. Furthermore, the use of deadly force by a police officer should be the last resort and not a coercive instrument of compliance.

Terence Crutcher, aged 40, was returning from class at a Community College. He was attempting to educate himself and make his family proud, when his vehicle broke down. Shortly thereafter, Terence lost his life. At best, this was Police officer's incompetence and negligence. At worst, this was racial discrimination and a lack of value for a man's life.

Based on the information given by the Tulsa police department, officer Betty Shelby arrived at the scene first and found Terence looking intoxicated and unresponsive to her questions. After questioning Terence regarding his ownership of the vehicle and receiving no response, Terence raised his hands high in the air and proceeded to walk away from officer Shelby's vehicle toward his own. By this time, the police team responding to the dispatch call arrived at the scene and Terence continued to walk toward his SUV with his hands still in the air. When he arrived at his vehicle, Terence was seen to either lean against his vehicle or put his hands on the vehicle. Because of his unresponsive, and allegedly unpredictable behavior, officer Tyler Turnbough deployed his taser. At the same time, officer Betty Shelby discharged her firearm and fatally shot Terence.

While officer Tyler Turnbough correctly deployed his taser, in accordance with a non-compliant individual who is perceived as a threat, officer Betty Shelby acted irrationally by using deadly force. The released video and audio can confirm Terence's and the police movements as described by the Tulsa police department. The released video and audio cannot confirm whether or not Terence was intoxicated or unresponsive. What we know for certain is that he did not have a weapon on him or in his vehicle, he did not move toward officers in a threatening manner and he was killed in the process. The video also disproves Shelby's attorney defense that Terence was reaching into the vehicle, because the window on the driver's side of the vehicle is clearly seen as rolled up from the helicopter camera. Lastly, the audio from the helicopter contains a female voice saying 'that looks like a bad dude', which shows that Terence's appearance played into the assessment of at least one officer.

In the name of transparency, the Tulsa police department released video from the dash cam of the second police cruiser, as well as video and audio from the helicopter. I applaud the Tulsa police department for transparency in doing so. However, if you really want to uphold transparency, do so in prosecuting officer Betty Shelby to the fullest extent of the law. You have the responsibility to the people whom you serve - the people of Tulsa Oklahoma.


Thursday, December 18, 2014

White Privilege: Reality and Myth

The Background
Even if you only casually pay attention to the news, you have probably heard the term white privilege being used more frequently, as racial tensions have been heightened across the country due to incidents of alleged racial injustice. These racial tensions tend to drown out the underlying catalysts, the fire-starters, below a flood of public outrage that grows so strong, that it becomes nearly impossible for ordinary people to objectively distinguish fact from opinion or emotion. 

It is while I was presenting the facts of one such incident, free of opinion or emotion, that an old high school friend of mine remarked to me: "How does it feel to be bathed in White Privilege and Ignorance?"

The Definition
White privilege is a term that summarizes any and all advantages that the white population experiences above common experiences of the non-white population under the same social, political, or economic circumstances. Such advantages are unearned and are applied based on the values of the white population. Furthermore, white people may not recognize some advantages as they are passive in nature (i.e. greater social status, freedom to move, buy, work, play and speak freely). Lastly, the concept of white privilege also implies the right to assume the universality of one's own experiences, making others as different or exceptional while perceiving oneself as normal.

Racism - History and Present Day
Schools across our nation have the history of Slavery, the Ku Klax Klan, Segregation, Civil Rights Movement, Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, South African Apartheid, etc. as class syllabus. The racial injustice in our history is important to understand and remember in order to prevent future generations from repeating the same behavior. In historical context, minorities in any country have been discriminated against in a wide variety of ways. Historically, entire communities and countries have been responsible for atrocities and discrimination on a massive scale. 

Though gradually, through education, integration, and legislation, we have been able to overcome the mass prejudice and discrimination with time. We haven't eradicated it yet - various white supremacist groups still exist and certain parents choose to pass down racial hatred to their children. However, racism in modern day is an exception, not a blanket policy anymore. 

Erroneous Premise
The basis for white privilege is misplaced. Poor white people have more in common with poor black people, than with any upper class of their own race. Case in point - in the very same manner that an unarmed black teenager is shot, a white teenager is shot as well. Dillon Taylor was an unarmed white youth in Utah who was gunned down outside of a convenience store. 

The opposite is also true - rich and ruling elite people have more in common with each other, than with any lower economic class of their own race. Rich athletes, entertainers and politicians often get away with a warning, probation, suspended sentence or community service. Whereas any common person would serve time in jail for similar offenses regardless of race. 

What are perceived as advantages specific to the white population, are in fact advantages associated with the dominant group in a society - the rich and ruling elite. As such, the correct term should be 'Elite Privilege', not 'White Privilege'.

While that term is not as 'sexy' for getting media ratings, re-tweets, or feedback; it is the most accurate one when talking about injustice in the modern age. The correct term also does not serve the purpose it originally intended it to serve.

Purpose
The true intent of the white privilege term is to gain the sympathy of ordinary white population and join the cause against perceived injustice of minorities, regardless of facts in the given case. This method provides greater volume of support and shapes the public opinion as being overwhelmingly against perceived injustice. What is important in these cases is to evoke the sense of guilt, while focusing more on emotions, opinions, and history; rather than the facts at hand. When you focus on emotions, opinions and history; you can rationalize and justify anything to support the 'just cause'. It is the modern version of the proverbial 'race card'.

Another related common use of 'White Privilege' is the Carte Blanche justification it provides for any actions committed by a member of a minority, no matter how unlawful they may be. Anything from robbery, grand theft auto, abuse of law enforcement, to drug trafficking and beyond can simply be justified by being blamed on injustice stemming from white privilege. And because the concept nicely closes out its definition with the 'universality of one's own experiences', it states that a white person cannot possibly relate to a person that belongs to a minority, while still soliciting that white person's sympathy. 

Reality and Myth
Going back to my friend's remark to me: "How does it feel to be bathed in White Privilege and Ignorance?". That entire statement was the culmination of a passionate man's frustration who felt just in his cause, who stated his opinions, feelings and history on the matter we have discussed. In the end, they could not compete with concrete facts, so he did the only thing he could - shift the focus on me with the Myth of White Privilege. All the while, ironically, he was the one Ignorant of the Facts. 

The reality is that I am a white first generation legal immigrant from Ukraine. I had to learn the English language almost from scratch when I arrived in the United States. I worked hard in High School to earn grades good enough to get a scholarship to offset the cost of Higher Education, as I knew my parents needed to save for my younger sister's education. There were no racially advantageous scholarships categorized for my white skin color. My parents paid next to nothing for my University thanks to my academic efforts and the various jobs I undertook while attending. For the amount(s) I could not pay immediately, I took out loans. When I graduated with a Computer Science degree in 2000 (after the dot-com bust), there was no Affirmative Action initiative to get white graduates jobs right out of the gate. Instead, I worked wherever a paycheck was available for a period of time. As soon as I was able to do so, I repaid all my school loans. All the while, I never blamed anyone for the hand I was dealt and took a fair account of my standing in life. 

So to answer my friend - I have no idea, because that's a bath I never had.

Final Thoughts 
Just because some individuals of a minority group are mistreated, doesn't mean that all individuals of a majority group enjoy a 'privilege'. Why did the creators of the term White Privilege chose to focus on the alleged advantages of the white race, instead of focusing on the disadvantages of the minorities? The answer is simple - focusing on the Minority Disadvantage does not evoke a sense of guilt from the white people and it does not accuse anyone of benefiting from the alleged systematic mistreatment of minorities. The guilt-evoking aspect, coupled with alleged beneficiary of mistreatment, provide the perfect media tool to gain traction and popular support.  

Be a critical thinker and use facts, don't just follow the trend/herd. For the population at large - No matter how just it may feel, it is important to get the facts before voicing and promoting an emotional misinformed opinion. Otherwise, you may find yourself accusing a friend of yours without merit and having to support your position, while realizing that deep down inside you are wrong. 

Finally, I want each and every one of you to ask yourself just one question - Do I want to live in a world that holds each individual accountable for their actions based on facts or do I want to live in a world that holds trials of public opinion based on emotion and history, rather than the facts at hand?