Hoop Dreams and the Reinforcement of Cultural Stereotypes Through Film

In the chapter on Hoop Dreams from her book, Reel to Real, Bell Hooks argues that, far from being a great documentary worthy of the praise lauded upon it, Hoops Dreams was essentially a propaganda piece designed to reinforce popular stereotypes of inner city blacks. The movie had the classic ghetto characters one would expect to find in the average "ethnic" film--the single mother struggling to keep the family together, the drug-addicted father who isn't there, and most importantly, basketball players.
Hooks makes much of the fact that the film does little to challenge the prevailing perception that one of the only ways a black male can rise in society is by being an athlete. She compares the commodification of these black boys by coaches and talent scounts to that of the slave market economy, where the worth of a black man is determined by his physical prowess. Once the body breaks down, they are of no more use and are cut loose in a skewed "what have you done for my lately?" mentality. When William Gates blows out his knee a second time and walks away from the game, he is portrayed as the "loser" in the invented competition between the two boys. In reality there was no "competition" between Gates and Arthur Agee, but the film is constructed in such a way as to create tension and drama between the two.
I don't remember what Gates ended up doing--it's been a long time since I've seen the film. But I do remeber Agee going to some crappy college in the middle of nowhere so that he could continue playing basketball and chasing the dream. He did get to continue his education becuase of basketball, but that is simply a sidebar, not why he's the "winner." Society doesn't care about the education of young black men. Playing basketball isn't portrayed as a vehicle towards an education, it's the end in and of itself.
Negative stereotypical images of blacks, espeically black men, pervade our society and the media does little to challenge these assumptions. Blacks can be atheletes, singers, dancers, in short--entertainers. Or criminals. Hell, even the atheletes and singers are criminals these days. Gradually, people begin to take on the persona that the media assigns for them, begin to believe what they are told about themselves--a classic example of life imitating art. There are very few positive portrayls of blacks in the mainstream media. Even now, during Black History Month (the shortest, coldest month of the year--thanks, white America!) the images are repetative--Martin Luther King, Harriet Tubman, George Washington Carver, Fredrick Douglass. Others may get a little face time, but every February, without fail come the big 4--the Mount Rushmore of black history. Few people have heard of Carter G. Woodson, Bejnamin Banneker, Garrett Morgan, or Charles Drew. On the History Channel website, they have a list of "African American icons" up for Black History Month. 34 out of 65 are atheletes, musicians or actors. What message is this sending to the black youth of America? During his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, Barak Obama said that we must "eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white." Unless the media changes the way blacks are portrayed, I fear that that slander with be with us for many years to come. Sorry Barak.

Invasion from Mars!

In the piece, Invasion from Mars!, the susceptibility of people to believe and be influenced by mass broadcasts is examined. In October, 1939, Orson Welles debuted his radio adaptation of H.G. Well's book, The War of the Worlds. The play was presented as a series of news flashes interrupting a musical program on CBS. Despite the fact that disclaimers were given at a beginning and middle of the program, many people believed that there was really an invasion from Mars, and that the end of the world was at hand. Widespread panic ensued as distraught citizens attempted to escape. Some people even committed suicide rather than die at the hands of the Martians. Following the broadcast, Welles stepped out of character to reveal that it had all been a Halloween play designed to have the same effect as stepping out from behind a bush and yelling "Boo!"
People trusted the radio. They simply assumed that the news flashes were real because it was not uncommon for radio programs to be interrupted with breaking news. CBS was forced to apologize, and the FCC was inundated with angry letters.
I believe humans, on the whole, are gullible creatures. There is a section of the populous that will believe anything they hear, especially if it is channeled through the mass media. This piece brought to mind several examples, not all of them current, of the crazy things people are willing to believe if they think their lives are in danger.
In the 1950s, educational films were made for children explaining that in the event of a nuclear attack, they were to get under their desks and cover the back of their head. These films got people to actually believe that they could survive a nuclear holocaust by hiding under a table. Another, more recent example, happened just a few years ago at the turn of the century. In 1999, Y2K was the buzz word. At midnight on New Year's Eve, all the world's computers were supposed to fail--planes would fall out of the sky and nuclear weapons would launch themselves. People were scared. They went out and bought soup, water, potted meat--and of course--nothing happened. After the 9/11 attacks, Tom Ridge and the Department of Homeland Security told people that in the event of a chemical or biological terrorist attack, they would be safe if they put plastic sheeting over their doors and windows and secured it with duct tape. So let me get this straight--I'll be protected, from from some of the deadliest weapons ever devised, with some shit I can buy at Home Depot? I'm supposed to believe this? But people did. All over the country now people's home disaster kits include duct tape and plastic sheets.
Especially if there is fear of an apocalyptic, life-or-death scenario, people are willing to believe anything they hear, no matter how crazy it sounds.

Selling the Holocaust

Most, if not all people have read The Diary of Anne Frank. It is widely recognized as the "Holocaust Bible."(which is an odd designation, considering that she was Jewish. Why not the "Holocaust Torah"?) The Holocaust is merely the backdrop for the book, which mainly concerns one girl's attempts to cope with day to day life in an impossibly difficult situation. A big deal has been made about the fact that when her father first had the diary published, he edited out parts concerning Anne's conflicts with her mother and introspective sections about her budding sexuality. It has been argued that by omitting parts of the book, an incomplete picture of the situation in the attic is painted, and that by ignoring Anne's sexuality, she was in a sense transformed into an androgenous character in these events. Whatever her father's motives in leaving out the mother/daughter conflict, its absence did nothing to minimize the power of the diary. I mean hell, the guy's whole family was killed, give him a break--why would he want to dishonor their memory by revealing petty family squabbles to the world? As to the sections about Anne's sexuality, it is easier to see why those were omitted. In the 1950's when the book was first published, people weren't ready for a pubescent girl's graphic descriptions of her changing body. And besides, what father would want the whole world reading his daughter's private thoughts on going through puberty? I know I wouldn't.
I don't fault Otto Frank for leaving out certain parts of the diary in the published version. Everyone wants to portray themselves and events in the best light possible, especially when something is recorded for posterity.
Take for example the debacle with the anti-Islamic cartoons that were published in Denmark. Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of the Jyllands-Posten newspaper who was responsible for the cartoons, is a well known neo-con with ties to Daniel Pipes (who gained notoriety for his observation that, "[Muslim immigrants are] brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and not exactly maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene").
Rose claims that he requested the cartoons because, "I was concerned about a tendency toward self-censorship among people in artistic and cultural circles in Europe. That's why I commissioned these cartoons, to test this tendency and to start a debate about it." Bullshit. When asked if he would publish a cartoon of Airel Sharon strangling a Palestinian baby, he replied that he wouldn't becuase some would find it "offensive." When recently approached with a cartoon lampooning Jesus, he declined to publish it because he "didn't request it."
Is it really about freedom of speech and sparking debate? Or is is simply a racist, neo-con asshole trying to cover his ass after the shit hit the fan?

The Media Curriculum of Global Values

The piece "The Media Curriculum of Global Values" argues that the mass media are used in society to perpetuate a social hegemony--to reinforce and affirm society's morals, values, customs, and even, according to Semali, to perpetuate a Eurocentric world view. The news media are never free from bias, no matter how objective a story may appear.
As I read this it brought to mind the media coverage of the events in Palestine. The Isralies and the Palestinians have been locked in a half-century battle for dominance in the region. While admitting that atrocities have been committed by both sides, in America we are primarily informed of atrocities committed by the Palestinians. The actions of the Palestinians are portrayed as "terrorism" because innocent civilians are killed. But when Israeli troops shoot and kill two children--one a nine year old girl and one a 14-year old boy--as they did last week, in the Western news media it hardly makes a ripple. Why, in the eyes of the mainstream media, are the lives of Israelis worth more than those of the Palestinians? When one of Israel's "targeted killings" of a terrorist leader also includes two dozen dead civilians, it is seen as collateral damage. When a Palestinian blows up a cafe and kills two, it's a travesty. Why the double standard in the media coverage? Is it the powerful Jewish lobby in America such as the ADL and the AIPAC? Is that Israelis are essentially seen as white, while Palestinians are seen as brown? Why is one life worth more than another?
My guess is that is goes back to the Zionist slogan going back as far as the Balfur Declaration, "a land without a people for a people without a land." Despite the obvious fact that it was not a land without a people, the statement is very telling. To Europeans and those of European descent, the unspoken, and probably even unconscious mindset is that brown and black people are somehow sub-human. The racism that was used as the justification for the enslavement of millions of Africans is still with us today--merely in a subtler form, and the media coverage reflects that.