The Meaning of Spike Lee's Words

Roger L. Simon says what we all could figure out about Spike Lee--especially after the latter's "plantation" remark to Clint Eastwood:

Like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, time has been passing Spike Lee by. His worldview comes from another era and he has never really sought to revise it, to open his eyes. Proof of that is that for more than a decade Spike has barely made a film any of us can remember. Compare that to Eastwood, who, although some twenty-seven years Lee’s senior, is at the top of his career, having scored big in 2003-2004 with Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby.

No wonder Spike’s jealous. So what does he do? He reaches back to an era when he was more successful. He plays the old identity/race card. Now we could all laugh and say this is just another case of an (prematurely) aging artist grasping for attention, but these times are more complex than that. We don’t know which way we are going - toward a post-racial future or back to a racist past.

Rumor has it that Hollywood is one of the most racist places in the country. Though I live in LA, I don't operate in that world, so I don't know first hand whether this is so; however, even if this is true, there was a time when Lee's career flourished, perhaps peaking with 1992's Malcolm X--something which may have been a function of Denzel Washington's Oscar-nominated performance.

Spike made a successful, vaunted career by making movies about race or with race as a backdrop. He was the go-to director for such a genre and perhaps that's the problem. When he tried to branch out and away from that racial strait-jacket, it became obvious that he really isn't that great of a director.

So now Lee does what he has to do to get attention for his new project, Miracle at St. Anna, even stooping to taking cheap racial shots at the far more successful (and old, white, male, Republican) Eastwood of all people. I hope that the actors, no one I've heard of except for John Turturro, don't suffer for his stupidity and short-sightedness. That's the only reason that I might go see the movie.

Roger wonders how Lee's tactic relates to the post-racial future allegedly on the horizon. Thinking about the tenets of James Cone's and Jeremiah Wright's and Barack Obama's Black Liberation Theology, I personally wonder what the term 'post-racial' means to the proponents of that religion and to the Spike Lees of the world. Post white-racial "dominance," perhaps, would be a more descriptive term.

The question remains, however: what would replace it?

PREVIOUSLY:

"You Not Ma Daddy!"
Lee Tries to Make Eastwood's Day

Comments

[T-Steel]

As the son of two former Black Panthers, if Obama's preaching or believes in Black Liberation Theology, it's the weakest flavor I've ever heard. What I heard growing up (from family and friends who belong to the far far left militant black angle) would gobble up ol' Obama's "version" without a blink. On to the subject:

I don't get Spike Lee on his Clint Eastwood attack. Personally, I would have called "Dirty Harry" and have him collaborate with me. I'm sure Eastwood would have jumped at the chance since he's really into WWII history. But instead, Spike Lee has to flame him. Stupid since he's had a string of bad movies...

[T-Steel]

Another thing, lack of oil supply along with associated rise in all good and services sees no color. We all getting plastered hard. The NAACP should become the NAAAP (National Association for the Advancement of All People). This black man wants us to move forward as Americans. A solid energy policy benefits us all. Getting away from foreign oil benefits us all. Etc...

[David M]

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 06/11/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

[David Blue]

"Post white-racial "dominance," perhaps, would be a more descriptive term."

I think that's exactly right.

"The question remains, however: what would replace it?"

Fights over the racial definitions and entitlement status of hispanics and half-breeds.

They have to be "minorities" for the purpose of continuing to out-vote the whites, in order to maintain moral dominance and special privileges for, and resource transfers to, genuinely entitled non-white minorities. This means Blacks.

But as whites continue to wither away, there's going to be more vampires sucking and less blood to suck. So some of those suckers are going to have to be assigned the role of holding the whites down, but not getting a feed themselves.

How you define people as minorities for the purpose of beating whitey but not for the purpose of getting, for example, university places that go to Blacks - that's a problem. But it seems to be working on Asians so far.

"Post-racial" America is going to be much more racial than what we see now. It's going to be more about fighting over race and who gets to be compensated because of their race.

White is going down. Horribly. As the population shrinks, it will have less power to resist extraction of resources and imposition of shame on it, yet it will have fewer people and fewer resources to pay in tribute, which will make it wither faster, etc..

The fate of ol' whitey will serve as a horrible example of what happens to you if you let others define themselves as the victims and you as the stigmatized evil ones. So every other racial group in post-racial America will have to fight for superior racial status like their lives depended on it.

[Jon Thompson]

Turturro was in the Sacco and Vanzetti movie, so I doubt he's got enough braincells firing to object to anything.