Reader comments are listed below. Comments are currently closed and new comments are no longer being accepted.
I think this film's comedic routines about the proverbial white woman bringing home a black boyfriend also speak to white women bringing home non-white boyfriends in general to meet their parents. Whether he is; Black, Chinese, Iranian, Native-American, or mixed, sometimes it just gets very awkward. Men of colour who have dated white women may have experienced this tension with her family on a first meet which the film captures well. Sometimes racism is funny in its ignorance.
It must be very frustrating to be a black filmmaker when your only topics available are racism, slavery, Jim Crow, repeat. Ava Duvernay, Steve McQueen, Spike Lee, etc. You have to wonder, is there anything else going on in their lives rather than perpetuating racial stereotypes? Wouldn't they like to tell other stories? Emancipate themselves from mental slavery?
You must be aiming to win an award for the most tone-deaf comment. When you feel like your race is being systematically discriminated against it tends to focus your mind. If you want to argue against that point and suggest that race relations in the US are just peachy, feel free. If you don't like watching movies that present an alternative view of the world you live in, again feel free. I agree, it can be uncomfortable.
But there are many in the US, myself included, that feel we've never really gotten beyond the legacy of slavery. I'm not laying the blame entirely at the feet of whites either. And I also think that our unwillingness to fully deal with that legacy holds this nation back. There are many ways of making the US great. Many of them start with ourselves as opposed to some boogie man outside our borders.
Prospero is not satisfied that the sheep of the Academy allowed themselves to be corralled by reverse-racist propaganda to award the highest film accolade to a movie about depraved black youths. As far as he is concerned, there can never be enough films made about American "racism" -- alleged, imaginary, and hypothetical.
"Get Out" is inspired by "Guess Whose Coming to Dinner", a film made fifty years ago. Prospero knows that nothing has changed since then. The United States is still peopled by unconscious, unwitting racists. It will always be a racist country. In fact, things have gotten even worse since 1967. Complimenting a black man today is not only hypocritical by definition, it is "an insidious form of violence". ( No wonder the rate of murders committed by blacks is six times the white rate: Blacks are just defending themselves against ubiquitous white aggression, and their conviction rate is just further evidence of racism).
Naive Americans may think that the election and reelection of a black president indicates that most Americans are not racist at all. Prospero is pleased to disabuse them of this "post-racial fantasy". Three black men have been shot, and racism has been alleged to be a motive -- maybe even the only motive. Prospero doesn't require proof of this. He knows it to be true. So Obama's presidency is just a fluke, a head-fake by an unalterably racist society in which a "state of racial tension" continues to exist and will always continue to exist.
"Despite their protestations of liberalism, it is clear that they are unable to see past the colour of Chris’s skin."
What does the author mean by "despite?" Doesn't he mean to say "because of?" Modern liberalism is obsessed with race and racism and the inability of anybody to transcend his or her race. When all the minority populations' problems are because of racism, and racism is everywhere, and everybody is racist all the time (except for black people who can't be racist at all, not even a little), then the necessarily resultant balkanized society in which we live today is a far more absurd place than any film could possibly parody. The irony of this film is that it has already become far less ironic than reality itself.
"a fantasy thwarted by the killings of Eric Garner, Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown."
Well, let's talk about this. Eric Graner resisted arrest after violating various NYC statutes. If he had complied with the officers' request he would be alive today to continue to degrade the quality of life in his community.
Trayvon Martin (who could have been Obama's son) was killed by an Hispanic American in self-defense (the man who killed him was acquitted by a mix-raced jury and the DOJ found no basis for charging the shooter with a civil rights violation -- although the AG longed to do so.)
Michael Brown was a hoodlum who robbed a convenience store and strong-armed its proprietor and then, according to the DOJ, attacked Officer Darrin Wilson, who shot the young thug in self-defense.)
THESE are the heroes that TE puts forward as victims of American racism?
America has elected a black president, has had two consecutive Attorney Generals and has labored mightily to end racism in law, custom and public practice.
And, England has done exactly -- what? One slice of white bread after the next, right?
TE . . . more goddam fake news!
Stephen Spielberg was 'allowed' to make dozens of films, only one of which was about the Holocaust, or about Jews in general. Was he a traitor to his race?
Black filmmakers owe exactly nothing to you and your kind, who will never accept a black man as anything but a victim seeking justice. That's your problem, not the filmmaker's.
Ask any white guy who has dated a black girl how he was received in her community.
"I don't understand how one can knowledgeably maintain that "we've never gotten beyond the legacy of slavery", which the Constitution abolished over 150 years ago. Does this mean we will never get beyond it?"
It's pretty obvious, at least if you have spent much time abroad, that Americans think and talk about race more than the citizens of most countries. It's also pretty obvious that the American fixation on race emerges from our history of slavery and Jim Crow laws.
"The United States is the only country in the world that fought a great, four-year civil war at a cost of 600,000 lives for the ultimate purpose of abolishing black slavery."
The fact that only the USA required a civil war to abolish slavery is not something to be proud of, particularly since the USA was among the last Christian nations to abolish slavery.
The movie doesn't sound like it's about racism. It sounds like a movie of liberals coming to grips that they are racists.
Duh! Any conservative could have told you that.
White folk don't monopolize racism. The disease exists in every society, continent and culture. A small minority of folk everywhere suffer from it. The color of one's skin and one's ethnic origins are among the least important things about a human being, ranking alongside the color of one's eyes or hair, or one's height.
TE's guilt-ridden white liberal-fascist journalists only focus on white racism. They need to abandon this bigoted perspective and approach this intractable human problem with more intellectual rigor and objectivity.
White liberals are holding progress back because they are overly conscious of superficial manifestations of differences such as skin color and ethnic origins. Richard Pryor saw through them right away: he said, "have you noticed how NICE white liberals are around black people?"
Yes but it has a social justice plot so therefore it must get an Oscar.
The fact that this movie is even mentioned by the Economist speaks to the British obsession about racism in the USA.
Only American racism interests the British. They seem strangely indifferent to British racism.
Britain today is a more racist society than the USA.
There is a reason why Britain has never had a British person of Asian or black heritage as prime minister. Britain has been a multiracial society for more than 60 years now ever since large scale migration from its former colonies which started in the 1960's.
Yet, the top echelons of British power are always lily white. White prime ministers, white foreign ministers, white military chiefs, white chancellor of exchequer.
While the USA has already had a black president, 2 black secretaries of state, black military chief, black national security adviser.
Britain has a lot of catching up to do. It is many years behind the USA when it comes to equality for all races.
"By the nineteenth century slavery had become integral to the economy and culture of the South, and particularly to the planter aristocracy that controlled the state governments. They were not about to relinquish a traditional, genteel way life because Northern abolitionists from states with a completely different culture told them to."
That all amounts to the reality that it was quite easy for countries like Mexico (or Japan, which abolished slavery in 1590) that made minimal use of slaves to abolish slavery but much harder for societies that made extensive use of slavery to abolish slavery. The fact that the USA's south was so dependent on slavery is condemnable. The fact that they were reluctant to abolish slavery in light of their dependency on it is simply commonsense.
As you acknowledge, Northern soldiers laid down their lives to preserve the Union; not to abolish slavery. Any country that isn't in its death throes sacrifices soldiers to preserve its territorial integrity from secessionists.
"Whites and blacks do drugs at similar rates but blacks are far more likely to be arrested for possession."
I'll play devil's advocate on this issue. If you are a drug user living in a suburban or rural community you are likely to take drugs inside of your house with minimal risk of the police ever finding out about it. If you live in cramped urban housing you are likely to spend more of your free time outside of your house and are more likely consume drugs outside; that makes it much easier for the police to catch you.
Watched the movie yesterday. I understand why it was met with critical acclaim but as an African living in Africa, I still do not fathom the reasons for racism against Blacks in the West seeing that the deck is always stacked against them.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited all forms of racial discrimination.
Except when it comes to federal contracts where discrimination AGAINST white men is mandatory. Small detail.
You've illustrated the difference between a thoughtful point that validates the larger context and an emotional point from an insular point of view. And you suggest that talented black artists can't remove the "black" part and become just artists. If so, this merely supports my point that race relations are still an issue and we have work to do. Although an alternative view is that artists such as Spike Lee have a harder time connecting with their inner muse when they aren't dealing with issues that drive them on a deep level.
"Never gotten beyond the legacy of slavery?"
Were you around in, say, 1955 or, for that matter, 1965? I was I am astounded that someone could assert that the USA has not made any progress in race relations since 1865. If you are correct, then MLK jr. was a waste of time, as were the Freedom Riders or those who suffered the "Sit-ins" in segregated restaurants.
The Great Civil Rights Acts of 1964/1965, not to mention Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, were meaningless blips in our jurisprudence -- if we believe what you wrote.
Selma . . . Medgar Evers . . . Rosa Parks and the municipal bus boycott . . . "We shall overcome" . . . all of that, you seem to assume, was just blue smoke and mirrors.
This nation has made extraordinary progress on race relations. And, in fact, it is not time "to fully deal with that legacy that holds this nation back" but, rather, move beyond the dead-end of racial resentment and toward economic justice, regardless of race. (That is what HRC COULD have done and what she so signally failed to do.)
Doubtlessly, you wish people of all races well -- that is evident. But, your statement defies both history and common sense.
Exactly it is always about American racism, never about British racism in the Economist.
Thanks for backing up my point that the British have whitewashed their own history of racism & slavery.