Eastwood vs. Lee: An Insight into America’s Racial Dialogue

By michaelmogg

If you haven’t heard by now, Clint Eastwood and Spike Lee are having a media firefight [read here] over Eastwood’s recent films and the lack of an African American presence in them. Let’s try to look at this dialogue as a microcosm of the greater racial dialogue that Barack Obama mentioned needs to take place, way back before the Pennsylvania Democratic Party Primary. To get to the center of this issue, we should peel away the layers (like an onion) beginning with the latest comments, slung by Lee.

” . . . we’re not on a plantation . . . ” said Lee. Why is Spike bringing up slavery, here, now in 2008? That is the classic white guy response to Lee’s comment. Most African Americans would say that when a white guy has the audacity to tell a black man to shut up, he is bringing back a flood of horrible history where African Americans indeed had to shut up before their masters. Whether Lee was right or wrong to bring up the slave imagery is redundant, rather, it is clearly a legitimate feeling among a majority of the African American population.

“A guy like him should shut his face.” Eastwood’s words are jarring, and for me personally — as a big fan of Clint’s — I found them difficult to reconcile. Lee’s response, in part, was that he [Lee] “didn’t personally attack him.” For someone so versed in the racial complexities of America, this shows a touch of — dare I say — ignorance on Spike Lee’s part. Surely he has to be aware that the racial climate over the past several decades in America has leaned increasingly towards political correctness and the hyper-sensitivity to calling people out as racist for their deeds and words, however far removed as they may be. Why is it completely rational for “shut your face” to connote racism and slavery, but calling into question Eastwood’s racial make up of historical films not at all accusatory on a personal level? After all, Eastwood is the director, having creative control over the production. In which world is Spike Lee living that his calling into question Eastwood’s films is in any way not personal?

The real problem with the “shut up” type comment, is not the charge of racism (since the entire point from inception is one of race), but the fact that Eastwood removed all reason and constructive dialogue with his words. Pointing fingers and name-calling (“angry old man” isn’t exactly uplifting and constructive either) is not the way forward. Both sides have legitimate emotional investment in this debate, and both sides need to recognize that both are valid. Eastwood must confront the alternative reality Lee is putting forward without defensiveness; Lee, in turn, has to understand that in the socio-political climate of the day, there is no such thing as “impersonal” claims of intentional racial-historical omission.

One of the greatest barriers to reconciliation and dialogue is actually the media (surprise, surprise). Look at the headline on the above Huffington Post article I linked. “Clint Eastwood: Spike Lee Should ‘Shut His Face’, Lee Responds, “We’re Not on a Plantation”. The two sides actually had a lot more words to say. In fact, Lee said, “First of all, the man is not my father and we’re not on a plantation either.” Why not put the “father” comment into the headline? I guess it doesn’t get as many hits. Naturally, of the entire dialogue, those are the most racially charged words, and by emblazoning them in the headline is about as helpful as a school ground fight where all the others gather around chanting “fight! fight! fight! fight! fight!” It’s purpose is to stoke the others onward to even more violence. The same is true here.

What we need for true dialogue and reconciliation is thus: rationality and keeping emotions in check; understanding for sensitivities on both sides of the dialogue; the calm not to be swayed by media headlines/soundbytes without looking at the heart and truth of the issue. In America’s racial dialogue, there is far too much defensiveness, lack of empathy, and media interference with the sole purpose of not having a reasonable discussion.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply