Throughout my educational journey we have learned about many points in history and there impact on the American people, but one thing that I felt that wasn't covered enough in school's is the effect the Black Panthers had on the United States and the influences in had on young African American men growing up. If they were brought up in schools it was very briefly and didn't really go into detail about what they were about, also mostly describe them more as a crime organization. In the film Night Catches Us by Tanya Hamilton is set in a Philadelphia in 1976 in a post Black Panther active movement. The main character in the film is Marcus who is an ex-panther who comes back to Philadelphia because the death of his father and is faced with his dark and violent past, because of his past decisions he is considered a "snitch" among the active Black Panthers in the area. Marcus runs into a long lost friend Patricia who was also a member of the BPP(Black Panther Party) and this two are faced with the same issues that they have been fighting since the beginning of the BPP and tries to pass down the information about the movement to the younger generation who is Jimmy Dixon and Iris Wilson who are curious about the party. Jimmy is the young 18 year old boy who wants to prove that he belongs with the party by using a common BPP element of violence by killing a police officer and how the police act towards this act of violence. This is a movie that illustrates conflict between two generations of African American and the journey to understand the past and the issues still prevalent in 1976. The class concepts that are expressed in this political and emotional fight is white privilege, active anti-racism, passive anti-racism, and African American film makers.
The first point I'd like to discuss is the effect of white privilege on the film, and how it was perceived among the masses. White privilege is the unearned, unnoticed advantage for white people based on social norms that have been established through out the nation. In this film many African American are taken advantage of or oppressed due to the prevalent appearance and conflict with white police officers in the area. An example of this occurred in the beginning of the film when Jimmy was picking up can's in a private lot and a officer was harassing him by telling him to leave his cart and leave by blocking in him in by his car. In reaction Jimmy sayed something rude to the officer and because of that the officer uses police brutality and arrests the young men because he was expressing his freedom of speech. The officer thought he had the right to arrest Jimmy for no reason because he was different race and was a show of force that the white people could do anything they wanted and get away with it because of the social structure of the era. This type of white privilege was evident through the whole motion picture and I thought it did a good job of depicting these conflicts between African Americans and whites people.
It was interesting to see this in a film and opened my eyes to how much hurt this put on African American community's, in other words I believe it was wrong to unjustly do this to a group of people who just wanted to be treated with respect, and as human being. Is this too much to ask for American citizens to be treated equals? Well no I don't believe its to much to ask, but if you were to ask white people that were actively involved in rebelling against the BPP they would be a good portion of these individuals that would disagree with me because they are so brain washed that "white is the only good", the reason for this is because it has been ingrained in are society that dates back to the beginning of this country. The only flaw in this concept in the movie is that the African American community doesn't do anything to fight these wrongs, and were almost to submissive to the the power of the white man. This could be because of lack of time to address the problem or because they wanted you to form your own opinion of what would have happened in reaction.
Secondly I'd like to address the topic of Active Anti-Racism, Passive Anti-Racism and Active-Racism that was being displayed in the film. Active Anti-Racism was being practiced by the BPP and the African American community. They did this by reacting to police and civil oppression that was going on in 1976. This appeared only once in the beginning of the film which was very surprising to me because of what I've read about the BPP, I believe this was because of the time period this story was told in, which was two years after this movement started to die down. The example of this occurred when a African American man was being harassed in front of a local store in the African American community and Jimmy trying to prove something defended the young men and started calling the officers a derogatory terms like "pig" which was commonly used in the Black Panthers. While this was all happening participants of the BPP drove by in are car and shot out the back window of the cop car with a shotgun, to show that they will be there for citizens of the same group. Also I feel like they did this to express that police brutality wouldn't happen without consequences, I would consider this group to be a mini army for members of the African American race.
Another element that showed up once in the film is Passive Anti-Racism which was demonstrated by Patricia's boyfriend when he was talking to Patricia about her past and he said "You all are living in the past, and fighting an invisible enemy" which I took as that he felt like the issues that she has fought in the past weren't current, which was interesting because he was African American man, and went against most of the other African Americans characters views in the film. This was a way to show both perspectives of people of the oppressed group, and that he felt like there was no point in continuing the fight for civil rights because the job was already done and these issues weren't prevalent anymore. This is because in the film he was never shown in conflict with the police and didn't experience many of the elements that were being demonstrated, so with his lack of his first hand experience he was oblivious of the issues and this is why I feel like his opinion was drastically different from rest of the films African American characters.
Finally the last concept that was a major role is how the movie was seen through the eyes of the oppressed this was a result of having a African American director and writer. This was beneficial to the development of the characters because Tanya Hamilton grow up during this era and probably has seen, or even experienced some of these wrong during her lifetime. This film took Tanya seven years to write, and you can really see that in her work on the film because it is very precise with its messages, and was just put together very well, when considering all the elements of oppression that was conflicting through the film. She could relate to what the characters were going through and gave the film a very real image of life for the African American people during this struggle for rights and the opportunity to succeed in this country that is full of opportunity(aka opportunity's for everyone who's white.) This is demonstrated by the troubles they have with the society system in place and you can see it in the eyes of the characters that they really feel the hurt that went on during that time, and how it could destroy families in the process of fighting for freedom. This just shows how powerful freedom is to people that are being oppressed in America, people came to this country for the opportunity's to escape oppression from other countries.
In order to do so we should try to fulfill the words of are founding fathers "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."(Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence). This is a demonstration that we are all no matter what race have rights given to us at birth, and that we all should have the opportunity to make something of are selves. In correlation with the film we should have are rights in tact without the interference of racist cops and be able to walk in any community without being harassed because the color of are skin. This movie sends out the message that even if you aren't apart of the social norm that you should fight for what you believe in because if not you will be pushed around all your life, so if the Black Panthers never existed then this could be still prevalent in today's society throughout the country. It is just proof that movements for rights will eventually ware down people of the majority group and in the end will make you successful in what you are wanting, if you are willing to fight hard enough for your beliefs. So to answer my question that I asked in the title after reviewing the information and seeing it in a media outlet, I would have to determine that these citizens that were involved in the Black Panther Party were not criminals they were good people who were tired of not have a say in this world and had the courage to stand up for there people in order to fight for rights that they deserved for the start. This group was apart of a counter cultural movement that went against the norms of society and for that there were reacted towards, with them being killed, wounded, or thrown in to jail and it was all worth it for them because there was no other option, it was either fight for what you believed was right, or continue to be oppressed and have the thought in the back of you head that you had to watch every movement or sound you made because it could end up hurting you physically and mentally as a result. I believe that if I were alive during these times of civil rights movements, I feel like I would have been a strong supporter of this movement and would do anything in my power to help them get what they rightfully deserved. So I feel like these men and woman of the Black Panther Party should be considered hero's not just for African American but for all types of people all over the world because they showed that if you set your mind to it there isn't anything that is going to stop you from fulfilling your dreams.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Thursday, May 20, 2010
"But I'm A Cheerleader" supporter of homosexuality, or steretypes?
In the film "But I'm A Cheerleader" by Jamie Babbit was about the lives of a group of individuals and there struggles to find out what there gender orientation is while having outside forces pulling them in two directions, from the homosexual couple and the parents and camp instructors. This movie was made in 1999 and by the looks of the scene and the people you would have thought it was made sometime in the 50's. To include to that point was something said by Ruth Gregory that i thought was very true "they did this because back then it was thought that men were men back then and woman were woman." This is the era where society was perceived to be perfect and the norm of what the majority views. The concepts that apply to this film is the way they see sexual orientation, heterosexism, and homophobia.
In the film sexual orientation was a big subject in its plot. The story was about a young teenage girl who was thought to be a lesbian by her peers so in order to try to fix what society thought was wrong with her she was sent to a camp called True Direction, which main purpose was to turn homosexual people into straight people in order for what they called to be "normal". The colors that they used in the film were very strong blues and pinks which i believed was used to ingrain in there mind wish gender they belonged to and which one they should act like. This wasn't a good method because i felt like it was too over the top and suffocated the patients in what they thought was the right sexual orientation.
Another way they tryed to make the patients straight were to do stereotypical hobbies that were thought to be the norm in woman and men. This activity's for men were jobs like working on a car, playing football, shooting guns, and chopping wood. For woman they were forced to change babies, vacuum, do there makeup, and try on wedding dresses. As you could tell from the film these tactics weren't something that changed a person they were just ways that made the person be able to discise who they really were inside. I felt that even the camp owner realized that her program wouldn't work either, because she could see it in her son who acted gay. For example when her son was drinking out of a twirling straw and she said "what are you doing take that straw out and chug it like a man. This shows a stereotype that only real men chug there drinks because if not you could be viewed as a homosexual.
The term heterosexism was very prevalent in the film this was established by the parents of the kids and the peers around them. This was viewed because through out the film there wasn't one parent or friend that was supportive of there kid being homosexual. This shows that heterosexuality is viewed as the norm and everything else is the "other" and aren't recognized as humans that don't deserve any rights in America. This is because everyone else who didn't approve of the children's actions were using names like "faggot, gay, freaks, and fruitcakes" These are words used to dehumanize this group of people, in order to have others believe that these groups aren't deserving of to be treated like the norm. Also something that relates with this is homophobia this was shown by the dad of the character of Graham who was so discussed in being there that he couldn't stand being there the whole time because of what he liked to call all the "faggots" in the group meeting. i feel that this was because he was homophobic and didn't even like the fact of being around people who were homosexual and didn't mind expressing his feelings.
So in the end i feel like this movie was in the end a supporter of homosexuality because they finally found out that it was ok to be gay, and had no regarded for what other people thought about there homosexual relationships. This wasn't evident to me to the last scene because during the film it felt like the writers were almost trying to make fun of homosexuality, by the characters and how they made them out to act like. In the end they felt the impact of the moral wrongs that were being placed upon them and rose up against all odds and overcame the norm to be who they were designed to be.
In the film sexual orientation was a big subject in its plot. The story was about a young teenage girl who was thought to be a lesbian by her peers so in order to try to fix what society thought was wrong with her she was sent to a camp called True Direction, which main purpose was to turn homosexual people into straight people in order for what they called to be "normal". The colors that they used in the film were very strong blues and pinks which i believed was used to ingrain in there mind wish gender they belonged to and which one they should act like. This wasn't a good method because i felt like it was too over the top and suffocated the patients in what they thought was the right sexual orientation.
Another way they tryed to make the patients straight were to do stereotypical hobbies that were thought to be the norm in woman and men. This activity's for men were jobs like working on a car, playing football, shooting guns, and chopping wood. For woman they were forced to change babies, vacuum, do there makeup, and try on wedding dresses. As you could tell from the film these tactics weren't something that changed a person they were just ways that made the person be able to discise who they really were inside. I felt that even the camp owner realized that her program wouldn't work either, because she could see it in her son who acted gay. For example when her son was drinking out of a twirling straw and she said "what are you doing take that straw out and chug it like a man. This shows a stereotype that only real men chug there drinks because if not you could be viewed as a homosexual.
The term heterosexism was very prevalent in the film this was established by the parents of the kids and the peers around them. This was viewed because through out the film there wasn't one parent or friend that was supportive of there kid being homosexual. This shows that heterosexuality is viewed as the norm and everything else is the "other" and aren't recognized as humans that don't deserve any rights in America. This is because everyone else who didn't approve of the children's actions were using names like "faggot, gay, freaks, and fruitcakes" These are words used to dehumanize this group of people, in order to have others believe that these groups aren't deserving of to be treated like the norm. Also something that relates with this is homophobia this was shown by the dad of the character of Graham who was so discussed in being there that he couldn't stand being there the whole time because of what he liked to call all the "faggots" in the group meeting. i feel that this was because he was homophobic and didn't even like the fact of being around people who were homosexual and didn't mind expressing his feelings.
So in the end i feel like this movie was in the end a supporter of homosexuality because they finally found out that it was ok to be gay, and had no regarded for what other people thought about there homosexual relationships. This wasn't evident to me to the last scene because during the film it felt like the writers were almost trying to make fun of homosexuality, by the characters and how they made them out to act like. In the end they felt the impact of the moral wrongs that were being placed upon them and rose up against all odds and overcame the norm to be who they were designed to be.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Does "Murderball" expose issues or just reinforce them?
In this film there are many issues that they try to get across to the audience about the disabled. They do it in a way that demonstrates are coujavascript:void(0)rse concepts that we have been studying in are class. The course concepts that apply to this film are Disability and how it connects to masculinity, and sexuality amoung disabled. So in order to see the parallels between these issues you have to analyze the differences and similarities between them all.
First i would like to discuss how the disabled in the film and the director portrayed masculinity and how they show this in there actions. In this film they display these disabled quad rugby players as ultra masculine. Joe the Canadian coach is shown yelling at his players, as well as the American coaches, which shows how male coaches of able bodied people act as well. So it shows that no matter if you are disabled or not that men always want to yell when it comes to sports. The players that were displayed in the film, were shown to be very rough, with tattoos, and seemed to be emotionless, like men are usually displayed in society. An example of this is when they were talking about USA player Zupan and his friend said "If you think Zupan became an asshole after his accident, then you are mistaken." I feel what he means by this is that his accident didn't change his personality, saying that disabilities dint change a person they just make them stronger. So in my opion that disability does change someones level of masculinity and that no matter how able there body is, they always find a way to express there masculinity.
Competition is a major part of are society and has fueled are progress in this country since the very beginning, and the competition that is displayed in Murderball is no different from any other, no matter if they are disabled or not. The main subject of the film is there drive to get the upper hand on each other in order to defeat one another. I believe that these quad rugby tournaments are very political more then a sport because the United States are the best in this particular sport, and every other country wants to see them lose even if it isn't there country that beats them. This reflects the political world because everyone know that America is the world power but deep down most county's don't like us because of that. It seems that these little world that these rugby players live in, seemed to be ignored in the larger society. They feel like they have to fight with everything they have to be seen world wide, and because they are so competitive that came try when the mass media started covering there events in the olympics.
Lastly they showed alot of sexual expression in this film amoung most of the quad rugby players through a short segment that highlighted that process and how they felt about the subject. These people have just as much sexual drive as any other men, and they aren't embarrassed to express it to any girl or camera that is willing to listen. One player sayed the first thing he learned when he was first on his own was to learn how to masturbate, because that was important for them to be able to keep there sanity. I thought it was interesting that they had a video to show patients when they were ready to leave the hospital about how to have sex, the video was in a very boring fashion that made it seem like it was more of a hassle to have sex more then a feel good experience. Which i believe is wrong because they want and need to have sex just as much as any other human, so it should be displayed as a health way to recover and express yourself.
So when it comes to the question does this film expose the issues of disability or does it reinforce them with the way they went about displaying them. The answer is i believe they reinforce them a great deal. They don't try to display images that are different from normal stereotypes of male athletes, so I think that they could have showed more about the players families, and aspects other then sports. In order to show the softer and more understanding side of the teams instead of this image of this "blood thirsty savage" where life only revolved around competition. When it came to sex they showed them as just people who were addicted to sex and only mindset were about sports and getting a girl the next time the opportunity arises. So overall i believe this film displays alot of stereotypes in society and in many ways is exactly what we see about men in the media.
First i would like to discuss how the disabled in the film and the director portrayed masculinity and how they show this in there actions. In this film they display these disabled quad rugby players as ultra masculine. Joe the Canadian coach is shown yelling at his players, as well as the American coaches, which shows how male coaches of able bodied people act as well. So it shows that no matter if you are disabled or not that men always want to yell when it comes to sports. The players that were displayed in the film, were shown to be very rough, with tattoos, and seemed to be emotionless, like men are usually displayed in society. An example of this is when they were talking about USA player Zupan and his friend said "If you think Zupan became an asshole after his accident, then you are mistaken." I feel what he means by this is that his accident didn't change his personality, saying that disabilities dint change a person they just make them stronger. So in my opion that disability does change someones level of masculinity and that no matter how able there body is, they always find a way to express there masculinity.
Competition is a major part of are society and has fueled are progress in this country since the very beginning, and the competition that is displayed in Murderball is no different from any other, no matter if they are disabled or not. The main subject of the film is there drive to get the upper hand on each other in order to defeat one another. I believe that these quad rugby tournaments are very political more then a sport because the United States are the best in this particular sport, and every other country wants to see them lose even if it isn't there country that beats them. This reflects the political world because everyone know that America is the world power but deep down most county's don't like us because of that. It seems that these little world that these rugby players live in, seemed to be ignored in the larger society. They feel like they have to fight with everything they have to be seen world wide, and because they are so competitive that came try when the mass media started covering there events in the olympics.
Lastly they showed alot of sexual expression in this film amoung most of the quad rugby players through a short segment that highlighted that process and how they felt about the subject. These people have just as much sexual drive as any other men, and they aren't embarrassed to express it to any girl or camera that is willing to listen. One player sayed the first thing he learned when he was first on his own was to learn how to masturbate, because that was important for them to be able to keep there sanity. I thought it was interesting that they had a video to show patients when they were ready to leave the hospital about how to have sex, the video was in a very boring fashion that made it seem like it was more of a hassle to have sex more then a feel good experience. Which i believe is wrong because they want and need to have sex just as much as any other human, so it should be displayed as a health way to recover and express yourself.
So when it comes to the question does this film expose the issues of disability or does it reinforce them with the way they went about displaying them. The answer is i believe they reinforce them a great deal. They don't try to display images that are different from normal stereotypes of male athletes, so I think that they could have showed more about the players families, and aspects other then sports. In order to show the softer and more understanding side of the teams instead of this image of this "blood thirsty savage" where life only revolved around competition. When it came to sex they showed them as just people who were addicted to sex and only mindset were about sports and getting a girl the next time the opportunity arises. So overall i believe this film displays alot of stereotypes in society and in many ways is exactly what we see about men in the media.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
The Pursuit of Happiness, Truth or a Misconception?
We have been told since the beginning of this country that we have the opportunity to be whatever we want, and that we have the inalienable rights to express are disagreement with the way we are being treated, and have the right to fight against these mistreatment's. In the film Harlan County, USA directed by Barbara Kopple, there is a history of conflict between the company Duke Power and the employee's that has been brewing all the way since the 30's strike that ended with many deaths of Innocent coal minors. It takes place in 1973 where workers are fed up with living conditions, wages, and safety guidelines, and there fight against the establishment. This film depicts the dire truths about wealth and income inequality, unions, and how documentary form can display a situation.
Wealth and income inequality is becoming a big problem in this county because of the greedy and powerful people that are in control of are countries major companies. This is a problem because by doing this it is eliminating are middle class, that has established us apart from other third world nations. An example from Class in America by Gregory Mantsios is when he states that "that the wealthiest one percent of American population holds thirty four percent of the total national wealth." This is a good example because it shows that about one third of are wealth is in the hands of only the top one percent which means that there is less money to go around for people in the middle and lower class. Which is a big reason why we have such a disparity in wealth between the rich and everyone else. As i watched the film I could see problems in action, the minors were living in such poor conditions while the company owners where reporting record high production rates. As the case in Harlan County the company was making more money and refusing to upgrade conditions and wages for there workers creating a problem where the company was cutting on essential needs in order to scrap ever ounce of profit no matter who it hurt in the process. I believe this is a big problem in are country, and it makes me question the system because I think that most of these corporations have political connections. By having these i believe that government give the company's the benefit of the doubt by giving them bigger tax cuts which reinforces the wealth inequality in are county while this effects the amount of money going to the government that could help aid welfare and programs that would help the lower class people have a better quality of life.
The major issue that correlates to the film is the effect of unions in are country. Labor unions are formed when dis empowered workers band together as a collective in order to seek better wages or improve working conditions.(America on Film 173) A problem with striking during this time of 1976 is because this is the time when the county viewed unions as UN-American, as a result of mass media and the threat of the cold war. Despite the public image it was necessary for the people of Harlan County to stand up against the establishment and fight for essential needs. They did this by weathering the storm of a thirteen month strike that caused people to die for the cause because that is how strongly they felt about it. These mine workers were dealing with no running water where they lived and wages that were going up four percent with the cost of living going up seven percent, this created these family's to get more desperate and in more debt. These workers were not asking alot of the company they just waned a better and safer life for themselves since they kill themselves for the benefit of the company. Company's don't like unions because it gives some of the power to the workers like in the film, Duke Power tryed creating new contracts that had a no strike clause in it, which the miners declined because with out the power to strike, a union is pretty much useless. Some ways that the company used to deter the strikers is hire what the call "gun thugs" that used the threat of guns to scare strikers. For these miners they have been so oppressed by the system that no show of force would deter them for getting what they deserved. With unions diminishing over the years I believe is a bad sign because unions are good for the country and its people. In addition because they even out the distribution of power among business and it deters companies from trying to exploit there workers and creates a middle class because they are able to get there share of the profit. So in order to restore some stability in are economy i feel we need to implement more unions in are companies so issues like Harlan County would have more of a union backing which could have made this strike less violent and also could have resolved it quicker and more efficiently.
The director Barbara Kopple used documentary form in order to get across the message of the oppressed miners, and showed them in a vulnerable state which made you empathetic with what they were going through. By filming the matter in the way she did it made you see the side of the workers which in the media is rarely seen with the support of the oppressed instead of the oppressor. One thing i noticed in the film was in the beginning when she showed the mine workers going into the mine, and she used all American music that displayed them as the good guy. When she did this i believe it was a good way to use sound because it was a excellent way to indirectly state her option on the subject. Another interesting tactic that she used was to interview the family's of the minors which made it personal for people watching the film and when she showed the employees in the corporate level of the company they were well dressed and didn't display anything about there family's. This shows that the company owners are living well and all about business, and they don't care about the well being of there employees. While the minors family's are living in a slum full of shacks with no running water , which again shows the mass disparity between the rich and the poor. I believe that this was the only way to shoot this issue because i believe if you didn't see it from this perspective, and from someone who wanted to support the strikers, because if not then i believe it could have been twisted by the media to show that the workers were in the wrong which could have been a another force against the workers. But instead it was used as a tool against the company because it got out to the country what was going on in this rural community, other wards it would have not been exploited and the problem could have continued to today.
So in this community do you believe that these workers have the power of the pursuit of happiness? Some would say yes because it was there choice to go into that line of work instead of receiving a higher education. On the contrary i would say "no" that these workers don't have the opportunity of the pursuit of happiness because in this and alot of cases that these family's were born into these situations and don't have the ability and knowledge to be able to figure out a way out of this way of life. Another thing that Duke Power does to be able to exploit there workers is drive out competition from the area so that the workers have no other choice to work for the company. When that is the only thing that a group of people can do they are in the power and exploitation of the company, and its either you play by the company's rules or you go unemployed. This I believe is a flaw in the system and contributes to the economic recessions that has plagued are county through recent years, and the only way to fix these problems is create laws that will stop this from happening, and exploit changes that are needed in order to create a movement that will eat away at these wrongs in society.
Wealth and income inequality is becoming a big problem in this county because of the greedy and powerful people that are in control of are countries major companies. This is a problem because by doing this it is eliminating are middle class, that has established us apart from other third world nations. An example from Class in America by Gregory Mantsios is when he states that "that the wealthiest one percent of American population holds thirty four percent of the total national wealth." This is a good example because it shows that about one third of are wealth is in the hands of only the top one percent which means that there is less money to go around for people in the middle and lower class. Which is a big reason why we have such a disparity in wealth between the rich and everyone else. As i watched the film I could see problems in action, the minors were living in such poor conditions while the company owners where reporting record high production rates. As the case in Harlan County the company was making more money and refusing to upgrade conditions and wages for there workers creating a problem where the company was cutting on essential needs in order to scrap ever ounce of profit no matter who it hurt in the process. I believe this is a big problem in are country, and it makes me question the system because I think that most of these corporations have political connections. By having these i believe that government give the company's the benefit of the doubt by giving them bigger tax cuts which reinforces the wealth inequality in are county while this effects the amount of money going to the government that could help aid welfare and programs that would help the lower class people have a better quality of life.
The major issue that correlates to the film is the effect of unions in are country. Labor unions are formed when dis empowered workers band together as a collective in order to seek better wages or improve working conditions.(America on Film 173) A problem with striking during this time of 1976 is because this is the time when the county viewed unions as UN-American, as a result of mass media and the threat of the cold war. Despite the public image it was necessary for the people of Harlan County to stand up against the establishment and fight for essential needs. They did this by weathering the storm of a thirteen month strike that caused people to die for the cause because that is how strongly they felt about it. These mine workers were dealing with no running water where they lived and wages that were going up four percent with the cost of living going up seven percent, this created these family's to get more desperate and in more debt. These workers were not asking alot of the company they just waned a better and safer life for themselves since they kill themselves for the benefit of the company. Company's don't like unions because it gives some of the power to the workers like in the film, Duke Power tryed creating new contracts that had a no strike clause in it, which the miners declined because with out the power to strike, a union is pretty much useless. Some ways that the company used to deter the strikers is hire what the call "gun thugs" that used the threat of guns to scare strikers. For these miners they have been so oppressed by the system that no show of force would deter them for getting what they deserved. With unions diminishing over the years I believe is a bad sign because unions are good for the country and its people. In addition because they even out the distribution of power among business and it deters companies from trying to exploit there workers and creates a middle class because they are able to get there share of the profit. So in order to restore some stability in are economy i feel we need to implement more unions in are companies so issues like Harlan County would have more of a union backing which could have made this strike less violent and also could have resolved it quicker and more efficiently.
The director Barbara Kopple used documentary form in order to get across the message of the oppressed miners, and showed them in a vulnerable state which made you empathetic with what they were going through. By filming the matter in the way she did it made you see the side of the workers which in the media is rarely seen with the support of the oppressed instead of the oppressor. One thing i noticed in the film was in the beginning when she showed the mine workers going into the mine, and she used all American music that displayed them as the good guy. When she did this i believe it was a good way to use sound because it was a excellent way to indirectly state her option on the subject. Another interesting tactic that she used was to interview the family's of the minors which made it personal for people watching the film and when she showed the employees in the corporate level of the company they were well dressed and didn't display anything about there family's. This shows that the company owners are living well and all about business, and they don't care about the well being of there employees. While the minors family's are living in a slum full of shacks with no running water , which again shows the mass disparity between the rich and the poor. I believe that this was the only way to shoot this issue because i believe if you didn't see it from this perspective, and from someone who wanted to support the strikers, because if not then i believe it could have been twisted by the media to show that the workers were in the wrong which could have been a another force against the workers. But instead it was used as a tool against the company because it got out to the country what was going on in this rural community, other wards it would have not been exploited and the problem could have continued to today.
So in this community do you believe that these workers have the power of the pursuit of happiness? Some would say yes because it was there choice to go into that line of work instead of receiving a higher education. On the contrary i would say "no" that these workers don't have the opportunity of the pursuit of happiness because in this and alot of cases that these family's were born into these situations and don't have the ability and knowledge to be able to figure out a way out of this way of life. Another thing that Duke Power does to be able to exploit there workers is drive out competition from the area so that the workers have no other choice to work for the company. When that is the only thing that a group of people can do they are in the power and exploitation of the company, and its either you play by the company's rules or you go unemployed. This I believe is a flaw in the system and contributes to the economic recessions that has plagued are county through recent years, and the only way to fix these problems is create laws that will stop this from happening, and exploit changes that are needed in order to create a movement that will eat away at these wrongs in society.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
