RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

Why Clint Eastwood Can be Trusted with Mandela (and Why Glenn Beck Can’t be Trusted with MLK)

by Gareth Higgins 10-30-2009

091030-invictusIt’s that time of year again — you know, when Clint Eastwood releases a trailer for a movie that looks fascinating and completely different from the last thing he did, and your trio of reactions run something like this: 1) Hmmm, Clint’s got a movie coming out — didn’t we just see ‘Gran Torino’ five minutes ago? 2) Hmmm, it’s got Morgan Freeman playing Nelson Mandela in it — how come no one ever thought of that before? 3) Hmmm, it’s a movie about the 1995 Rugby World Cup – how come no one ever thought of that before?  Well, no one ever thought of making a gripping film out of the ancient ‘old racist bloke in Detroit has his heart melted by a Hmong family and saves the world through non-violent atonement metaphor before singing a jazz song over the early end credits’ plot either.  So I’m rather excited about ‘Invictus’ — biopics are always a risky proposition, but there’s an implication in the trailer that this one might do more than retread what we already know or think we know.

Mandela has rightly become an unimpeachable moral figure, but it’s par for the course to ignore what he actually stood for.  Mandela is more than a mascot, though our culture might prefer him this way; he actually has things to say.  Icons of moral authority who act toward the common good are often treated this way: I was astonished earlier this week to see the digital wall montage that Glenn Beck uses to underline the gravity of what he’s saying — accompanied by the invocation ‘Speak Without Fear,’ an image of Dr Martin Luther King Jr. appeared, leading into Beck denouncing (yet again) concerns about climate change, and announcing his willingness to go to prison for the right to eat steak.  We might imagine Dr. King would agree that that particular cause doesn’t exactly warrant a new letter from a Birmingham jail.

In fact, we might also imagine that a reading of Dr. King’s actual thoughts about the actual world would surprise Glenn Beck and his audience.  In fact, and let me not be misunderstood: it’s kind of obscene for a man who recently imagined aloud his fantasy to poison Nancy Pelosi and joked about President Obama setting the people on fire to attempt to inveigle his way into the legacy of non-violence enacted by a man who, there can be little doubt, Beck would be denouncing if he were alive today.  But if his audience were being exposed to what he actually said about the world, I’d tune in every day.  Come to think of it, that’s not a bad idea — maybe we could organise a campaign to encourage talk show hosts only to use images of moral leaders if they’re going to spend two minutes every show actually quoting what they actually said.  Beck could begin with some reference to Dr King’s ‘Giant Triplets of racism, extreme materialism and militarism’; or maybe he could just agree to read a paragraph a day from his ‘Beyond Vietnam‘ speech… (Lest we indulge in hypocrisy, this needs to apply to all sides of the talk show political spectrum; not just Glenn Beck, who is becoming too easy a target for superficial denunciation — if you’re reading this, Glenn, I’d rather have a conversation with you than start a fight.)

Lest I get ahead of myself, let’s get back to the movies — I’m hopeful that the Eastwood/Freeman Mandela is more than a cliche, and resists the urge to laze in platitudes.  Clint’s last movie showed something about quiet authority, and portrayed a radical idea: that justice or peace sometimes costs its proponents a very great deal; it did this without barnstorming speeches or spelling it out; it gets better in the memory the more I think about it.  Eastwood’s Walt Kowalski in ‘Gran Torino’ felt like the culmination of every iconic character Clint has played — a man with no name/Dirty Harry all grown up and full of regret for past mistakes, who makes a choice to invert it all, and live beyond the narrow circle of selfishness.  Mandela made that choice a long time ago — who knows what Clint’s vision of a moment in his life might bring?  We might be about to see a film about an iconic figure that transcends the typical mistakes of making him unreachable to the rest of us; we might actually see a portrayal of Mandela that tells us something about leadership rather than merely represents him as a kind of political pop star.

Gareth HigginsGareth Higgins is a writer and broadcaster from Belfast, Northern Ireland, who has worked as an academic and activist. He is the author of the insightful How Movies Helped Save My Soul: Finding Spiritual Fingerprints in Culturally Significant Films. He blogs at www.godisnotelsewhere.wordpress.com and co-presents “The Film Talk” podcast with Jett Loe at www.thefilmtalk.com.

Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • Two things.

    Mandela won an ESPY award for, specifically, rallying South Africa around the Springbok rugby club, at the time considered a symbol of apartheid, because he saw it as a way of bringing together a country still deeply divided. But beforehand, while in prison he also learned to speak Afrikaans, which was considered the "oppressor's language." The point, of course, was reconciliation.

    I personally find it insulting that conservatives often evoke King's "I Have a Dream" speech to ignore the racism that still exists. Let's not forget that he referred in the very same speech to a "promissory note" that "white America" had failed to deliver. And having read King extensively, I know for a fact that more than once he denounced "right-wing Northern whites" for sabotaging progress on racial issues.
  • I actually don't know of anyone who argues it doesn't exist... Mind you, I do think the culture is going to digest it rather easily until it's not a mainstream issue. And some of the activism against it might actually preserve it; for example, affirmative action opens doors for whites to insult the competence of blacks and other minorities.
  • I actually don't know of anyone who argues it doesn't exist...

    In fact, some do. A right-wing columnist for my newspaper has basically said that it's nothing we need to worry about, and when I confronted her about it she dismissed me as an "angry black man," which I'm not.

    And some of the activism against it might actually preserve it; for example, affirmative action opens doors for whites to insult the competence of blacks and other minorities.

    That's actually been happening since the 1970s. However, affirmative action in fact has actually benefited white women most, because its purpose always was to add people to the "network" -- the "old boys club," if you will -- and they already had many of those connections in the first place.
  • A right-wing columnist for my newspaper has basically said that it's nothing we need to worry about

    Depending on how she worded that, I might agree. I expect most racism to die with the baby-boomers, at the latest. And on the way there, we have a strong social stigma to whites voicing racist opinions - much stronger than that directed at other races, as it reaches even to the motives of apparently benign statements.

    I don't see how the net population of white racists could possibly increase in this environment, and some might repent. But the more aggressive anti-racism campaigns seem, the more counter-productive they are.

    I know I often feel that the means of artificial reconciliation (affirmative action, etc.) pervert our social structures too much and don't necessarily achieve any real reconciliation. I think true reconciliation can only come the old-fashioned way: personally, not by arbitration. Both sides feel wronged, and any decree can only cover the problem up.

    I do think minority racists are more common, or at least more (explicitly) vocal. It'd be great to have equal stigma on all sides, but suggesting such usually just calls stigma upon one's head.

    and when I confronted her about it she dismissed me as an "angry black man," which I'm not.

    I wouldn't call you angry, but you do seem rather cynical. Then again, I don't think I can blame you...

    affirmative action in fact has actually benefited white women most, because its purpose always was to add people to the "network" -- the "old boys club," if you will -- and they already had many of those connections in the first place.

    Not sure how that matters...
  • I don't see how the net population of white racists could possibly increase in this environment, and some might repent. But the more aggressive anti-racism campaigns seem, the more counter-productive they are.

    It's not so much that it increases but that it becomes more open and obvious; a large number of white folks still have a very hard time with minorities, especially blacks, in positions of authority. One of the reasons I believe God raised up Barack Obama was to bring that to the surface, and civil-rights demonstrations back in the day proved to have the same effect.

    I think true reconciliation can only come the old-fashioned way: personally, not by arbitration. Both sides feel wronged, and any decree can only cover the problem up.

    That can't really happen until the "minority" race develops a general sense of trust. Besides, most minorities feel that the problems are institutional, not relational; there was plenty of interaction in the pre-civil-rights South but at the end of the day you still had to go back to your side of the fence. This is why, when the movement actually started, many resentful white Southerners said things like, "Our Negroes were happy until those Northern interlopers showed up!" -- they simply were not aware of the depth of the problem.

    I do think minority racists are more common, or at least more (explicitly) vocal. It'd be great to have equal stigma on all sides, but suggesting such usually just calls stigma upon one's head.

    I'm not sure I agree. I grew up in a "racist" environment that I had already started to move away from in my teens -- but smack dab into white racism (I won't get into the details here).

    I wouldn't call you angry, but you do seem rather cynical. Then again, I don't think I can blame you...

    There are reasons why few African-Americans are political/ideological conservatives, and they have nothing to do with affirmative action or welfare.
  • It's not so much that it increases but that it becomes more open and obvious; a large number of white folks still have a very hard time with minorities, especially blacks, in positions of authority. One of the reasons I believe God raised up Barack Obama was to bring that to the surface, and civil-rights demonstrations back in the day proved to have the same effect.

    So it's sort of like putting a phobic person in the very situation they fear. But when they react, do you just stigmatize them or what? How is that productive?

    That can't really happen until the "minority" race develops a general sense of trust.

    ??? Trust for whom - whites? We have white liberals who often lead the charge against bigots. If this is a collectivist emotion, haven't they redeemed all of us?

    Besides, most minorities feel that the problems are institutional, not relational;

    Please explain what "institutional" means. I thought it was just people in power with relational problems - who are probably elderly and therefore not cause for major initiatives IMO.
  • So it's like putting a phobic person in the very situation they fear. But when they react, do you just stigmatize them or what? How is that productive?

    That does a number of things. First, that it's identified as a phobia. Second, that the irrational attitude and accompanying rhetoric will be accompanied with related actions, often (but not necessarily) violent.

    We have white liberals who often lead the charge against bigots. If this is a collectivist emotion, haven't they redeemed all of us?

    These are the people who are today often called "socialists."

    Please explain what "institutional" means. I thought it was just people in power with relational problems - who are probably elderly and therefore not cause for major initiatives IMO.

    Well, when I was growing up there were certain neighborhoods where minorities couldn't buy a house. That should give a hint.
  • That does a number of things. First, that it's identified as a phobia. Second, that the irrational attitude and accompanying rhetoric will be accompanied with related actions, often (but not necessarily) violent.

    Why are those things desirable?

    These are the people who are today often called "socialists."

    I think I halfway see your point, but I'm having trouble putting my thoughts together. I think I'm not grasping how having a divided white community builds a lack of trust in the black community.

    I do understand that welfare issues and race are perceived as tied together... But that puts true conservatives in a position of having to scale a wall (i.e. discipline the jerks) before getting any serious black audience.

    Well, when I was growing up there were certain neighborhoods where minorities couldn't buy a house. That should give a hint.

    How is that not a relational issue? (BTW, I did notice your other example - I just can't seem to apply that to modern issues.)
  • Why are those things desirable?

    Because, in order for sin to be addressed, it first has to be exposed.

    I think I'm not grasping how having a divided white community builds a lack of trust in the black community.

    Depends on which side has the louder megaphone.

    But that puts true conservatives in a position of having to scale a wall (i.e. discipline the jerks) before getting any serious black audience.

    That's sort of what Bill Buckley was trying to do, but if he were here today he would tell you that he pretty much failed. He had actually opposed the civil-rights movement, not because he himself was racist but because he believed that it focused too much on the Federal government's role in striking down discriminatory laws. (He later saw that the feds needed to be involved.)

    How is that not a relational issue?

    You can personally like someone but not welcome him/her in your neighborhood because of what everyone else may think. "White flight" happened because many whites feared that their property values would drop if too blacks many moved in to their neighborhood -- and it became a self-fulfilling prophecy.
  • Because, in order for sin to be addressed, it first has to be exposed.

    Alright, so you're smoking the mole out and then shooting it. It strikes me as slightly odd that blacks are so offended that the mole pops up when they smoked it out.

    And wouldn't this be cured by just waiting for these people to die?

    Depends on which side has the louder megaphone.Blacks hear more from racists than non, then? Do they tune into radio stations or other media that are known to be racist? And would this be cured by not smoking the mole out?

    That's sort of what Bill Buckley was trying to do, but if he were here today he would tell you that he pretty much failed.

    Alright, thanks for the research lead.

    You can personally like someone but not welcome him/her in your neighborhood because of what everyone else may think.

    So if racism ceased to be a mainstream topic, would institutional racism do the same? It's a bit absurd to be self-conscious about something no one cares about.
  • Oops, looks like I ran us into the wall. Reply again to my last comment above (the one you already replied to) if/when you make a new thread.
  • irish_annie
    our family is interracial (just for context). i've also read MLK extensively. he was a uniter, not a divider. if he indeed such a quote exists in which he appeared to denounce 'right-wing northern whites', the context would be important. if MLK had lived, i think he would have been wearied by the self-righteous of either ilk (right OR left) waving about his name and his quotes, misusing them to exalt themselves and condemn others. that simply was not his heart.
  • Sorry, but that wouldn't be the case; keep in mind that King was accused by some of those on the right of being a Communist. And by necessity, most of his allies were on the political left -- e.g. union activists.

    As far as his quotes about "right-wing Northern whites," during the 1964 presidential campaign he also denounced Barry Goldwater as "the most dangerous man in the country."
  • Where is the quote about "right-wing Northern whites"? Note that I don't doubt the statement's accuracy, but Annie sort-of asked for context.
  • I have "A Testament of Hope," a collection of King's writings in which he said it at least twice but which I can't find right now; when I do I'll post it. But I think it was in an interview he did with Playboy magazine.
  • WaveTossed
    I remember back in the 1960s when Dr. King began activist activities against the war in VietNam. Some of the pro-VietNam-was people criticized him, telling him that he should stick with civil rights. As if civil/human rights were something completely separate from waging wars in foreign countries. Dr. King was a man who beieved in peace -- whether in the U.S. or in VietNam and other countries.
  • Jason_Byassee
    Invictus seems to be a movie version of Playing the Enemy, a beautiful book about how Mandela realized he could embrace rugby and use it to build a bridge with racist Afrikaners, and also root it out as a haven for racism (rugby stadiums had remained one place where they could, for example, chant racist slogans in peace). He also personally charmed national team members and had them singing the Khosa national anthem along with the 'white' on in front of all their adoring fans. Essentially it's a story about leadership, and overcoming an enemy with love, and also incredible shrewdness and cunning (wise as serpents...). I wonder how it'll work with an American audience that doesn't much care for the sports in question!
    Jason Byassee
    www.faithandleadership.com/blog
  • Well I've heard that rugby is basically pad-less American football... If so, I don't see why it wouldn't be appreciated here.

    I want to watch this movie, although I doubt I'll like rugby any more than football or soccer...
  • Jason_Byassee
    I don't know, how many movies do we have about baseball in this country? Now, how many about polo? But isn't the latter just an English version of the former? Yet it clearly doesn't sell on our screens.
  • BeverlyF
    Hehe. Did you mean cricket? Polo is played from horseback.

    And my teenaged daughter actually considered whether or not they had a rugby team in her college selection process as she is a player. We have never lived anywhere but Oregon.

    I think it will do great at the box office.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008