The Wake

If you want to see what high school kids know about history, start judging debate rounds. If you want to see what college kids think about race relations, sit in on Journalism 1001. I was discussing the Danish cartoon fiasco in the aforementioned class when one of my classmates decided to point out that there is such a thing as a “Moderate Muslim,” a genteel creature who apparently never gets offended and welcomes all facets of American culture with open arms. Another student applauded Grey’s Anatomy for featuring a black man in a position of power. Some brave souls were even intrepid enough to claim that the media doesn’t perpetuate stereotypes. And everybody agreed that Crash was like the civil rights movement put to film and shown on a projector operated by Malcolm X.

So what gives? Is there a problem when everyone’s talking favorably? The dilemma is realized when one notices that, as demonstrated by these comments, people are fine with perpetuating stereotypes when they don’t know they’re doing it. But does the inane positive connotation make up for the insult?

Stereotypes are generalizations that people make about others based upon their race, religion, background or other beliefs and practices. We’re all conscious of destructive stereotypes and do a decent job of avoiding them. For example, most people would think twice before claiming that black people are inherently more violent. This is because the moral and logical errors are pretty clear, as is the harmful effect of such rhetoric.

The downsides of “positive” stereotypes, on the other hand, are much less clear. Most people are completely fine with saying things like “Asians are good at math” or “black people are more street smart.” And why shouldn’t they be? These comments only seem to confer an advantage upon individuals of a certain race.

But we mustn’t forget that a stereotype is a stereotype. Whether it’s positive or negative, pigeonholing people based upon our superficial impressions is always a bad thing. The ultimate test of progress for us as a society is how we view people. Do we see each person individually, or do we regard them as part of a collective whole? Often, we view people as “the Chinese guy,” “the Mexican,” “the Arab,” “the Jew,” as if these classifications tell us something about that individual as a person. Far too often, we choose to glorify minorities as if the act will rectify the racism and structural violence committed against others of their kind on a daily basis.

It won’t. And even worse, it keeps us from understanding people who are minorities as individuals. Just like negative stereotypes, “positive” stereotypes shut us off from one another and reduce our cultural interaction and understanding to what we see on television.

But what does this have to do with Crash? Answer: everything. In the race to show just how progressive and modern we (as a nation) are, Crash was awarded an Oscar for best picture. It received an unending stream of praise not only for its technical and artistic merits, but also for its “gritty, realistic” portrayal of race relations in America. Crash was seen as a brave film that “took on” people’s perceptions of race. In reality, it was sociological comfort food. People could feel good about themselves because they enjoyed a movie that featured a Hispanic man with a heart of gold, a black man with a heart of gold and an evil white cop … who is eventually revealed to have a heart of gold.

These portrayals only serve to reinforce racism. Crash doesn’t respect its characters and outright refuses to portray them realistically. The Hispanic man, for example, is shown as morally pure and flawless except for his appearance and low socioeconomic status. The African-American characters are caricatures that spout predictable one-liners and “get nice” at precisely the right moments. Crash makes the audience feel good about society because it seems to say, “See? Minorities can be nice, just like you and me!” It doesn’t try to advance a dialogue about racism or portray society realistically. It tries, unsuccessfully, to counteract negative stereotypes with positive stereotypes.

The student’s comment about Grey’s Anatomy shows how this kind of rhetoric affects us. Instead of viewing the black character as just another doctor, he is seen as a “black man in a position of power.” At the end of the day, we can all feel great about this and go back to reading our copies of Roots.

If you want to see a film that gets race right, watch City of God. The main character is a normal, decent black kid, but not perfect. He gets put into a lot of difficult situations, as do his pan-ethnic peers, and sometimes he does the right thing; sometimes he doesn’t. He is not an inordinately pure caricature. In many senses, he is real and very much an individual person, portrayed outside of consideration for his skin color.

Of course, reality doesn’t always enter into the equation. The comment about “Moderate Muslims” serves as proof. Are people’s perceptions so far off that either you’re a flag-burning extremist or a deferential cow? I think that the Danish cartoons were highly offensive and wrong, but I’m not burning any embassies. Where does that put me?

As we move into what some commentators have called the “P.C. age,” modern Americans face a problem: not only do we have a moral obligation to fight transparent and explicit racism, but we must lead the charge against implicit racism. If we are ever to advance, we have to start viewing people as people, not races and religions. We have to learn to let our experiences inform our views of others, not television and movies. And for God’s sake, don’t ever mention Crash again. Ever.