Special Presentation: Wesley Du’s If I Was Like You

by Latoya Peterson

Wesley Du, creator of the film I wrote about here, has agreed to host to the film on YouTube so that everyone can have a chance to see it. (Thanks Wes!)

Here is the film, parts one and two.

As you formulate your responses, I’d like you to keep a couple things in mind:

1. How much does your race influence how you perceive this film?

2. How does this film factor into the conversations we attempt to have about the Things We Do To Each Other? As in, discussions of interracial tension that occurs between nonwhite groups?

ETA: This movie is going to dredge up some complicated feelings. It is ok to voice these, just like it is ok to be unsure how to feel. But what I am looking for in responses is engagement with the material – why do you feel the way you do? I already received a comment that is a disappointment (that will not be approved), so I want to make this clear – you can feel however you want about this film. However, I want people to articulate why they feel that way(if you are unsure, articulate that too) and what feelings this film brought to the surface. – LDP

Share and Enjoy:

Trackbacks & Pings

“If I Was Like You”, A Short Film By Wesley Du < Cryptic Clarity on 04 Nov 2009 at 2:33 pm

[...] short film (discovered through Racialicious) about racial conflict (perceived or real, intentional or physical) won’t be easy to watch, [...]
If I Was Like You « Brown R.I.C.E. on 06 Nov 2009 at 3:53 am

[...] under: Uncategorized — tescapi @ 12:53 am Probably old news to some but I ran across this short film by Wesley Du on the interwebs called If I Was Like You, a pretty intense 11 minutes, but [...]

Comments

atlasien wrote:

This is great this movie is up on Youtube and we can watch it here, but to be totally honest, I don’t think I’m going to watch it. I’ve wrote about it here before… my history includes some black-on-Asian abuse, in a really complicated context, and just THINKING about watching this short affects me on the physical level and gives me a nasty feeling in my stomach.

I wonder how the Youtube comments are going to develop… that’s a scary thought, and it might be better for Wesley Du if he turns off comments on Youtube entirely. On second thought, he’s probably ready for it.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 11:45 am ¶
Sean wrote:

I’m still processing it all, so if my initial thoughts on this film seem a little disjointed, then please bear with me:

There is a distinct lack of communication and empathy all around. From the thugs who victimized and ultimately killed the young man… to the outraged community who (although rightfully offended at the sign) did not help identify any suspects… to the store owner who balked at putting the picture in his shop window… to the kid’s father who seemed to sort of downplay his son’s predicament. (Asking him “How do I look?” when the kid’s face is bruised up is pretty indicative of a lack of sensitivity on his part.)

My next thought was along the lines of questions.

What did the man hope to accomplish by placing that sign on his house? Did he expect help or empathy?

If he was an outraged black man wielding a baseball bat at a white cop, would he have been taken alive?

What was his relationship with his son like? My understanding was that he did a stint in prison and came out to discover he had a kid to raise. What role did that relationship dynamic play in what eventually happened?

My last thought is sort of an answer to the question posed by the sign.

Very possible. Happens every day, unfortunately.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 1:24 pm ¶
derk wrote:

I have to admit, my first reaction was: “If my son WERE…”

To be honest, I think the fact that I’m a father factored more into my reaction than my race.

I had a hard time buying the interaction with the cop – mainly that Daniel wouldn’t have brought up the fight with the other kids as a potential lead, and the speed with which the cop pulled a gun (nothing illegal about having a bat on your own property), but maybe that’s par for the course in South Central LA.

What struck me, though, both with the sign and with the murder of the kid, is how racist language is used as a blunt object in the exercise of power. For example, do the two kids who mug Daniel’s son really think Asians are inferior, or did they just use the epithet to further intimidate him because it was the easiest word with which to hurt him?

And I did notice that nobody tried to engage Daniel and solve the problem, only to get him to take the sign down and remove the irritant.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 1:32 pm ¶
Slush wrote:

To be totally honest, my true first reaction was: men are so fucked up and violent. Why do they get so macho and out of control about things? This would never happen among women.

– That was my first thought, and my second thought was to question it. It’s not a point I would necessarily stand behind upon actual argument, especially not in such an overly generalized way. It’s certainly possible that it could happen.

But I also didn’t watch the whole thing, just the first three minutes, because it’s so painful to watch.

The other thing that’s interesting is reading Sean’s thoughts on it, which introduced completely new interpretations to me. What I saw initially suggested a case of perpetrators and victims, more or less. Sean’s questions, meanwhile, evoked a lot more empathy for the black men involved, and more questioning of motives of the ‘victim’ father and son. I don’t know anything about Sean, and I think his comments were very insightful, but it was interesting to note.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 1:47 pm ¶
diiorama wrote:

i think this is a great short film. unfortunately, instead of banding together, minorities have violence within themselves way too often like so.

im glad it’s up on Youtube and i Don’t think he should turn his comments off because what should he be afraid to hear? More people need to face the truth of the matter.

There aren’t too many films starring Asians in general. I salute this film for being one of the pioneers, especially on a controversial subject. The most mainstream one like this is Gran Torino.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 1:59 pm ¶
dersk wrote:

@Sean: I saw the father putting up the sign as just an outlet for the rage of his grief (a good friend of mine just lost his daughter after about 30 minutes – really sad story – and I’ve seen him going through the same process).

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 2:25 pm ¶
Sean wrote:

@ Slush

That’s one of the things I like about this site: the presentations of different angles and points-of-view. There’s usually more than what lurks at the surface.

Going strictly on this film, I wasn’t so much trying to elict sympathy for the black men involved, as questioning what if the shoe had been on the other foot.

I felt horrible for both the young man that was murdered, and for his father. However, since the question was asked “How much does your race influence how you perceive this film?” I had to look at it from the perspective of knowing how pervasive the “no snitching” street code is in some segments of the black community. This code has helped foster the same type of frustrating situation for many black parents that Daniel found himself in.

Much is made about parenting and/or the lack there of, in the black community and so I couldn’t help but analyze it from that perspective as well. Daniel was an ex-con, who obviously missed a portion of his son’s young life. Not only that, Daniel was unemployed -likely exacerbated by his criminal record. I’m certainly not implying that Daniel was to blame for his son’s murder, but it’s inconsistent to bring up how this type of situation affects black or hispanic children, but ignore it when the child is Asian, or Asian-American.

To me, Daniel’s sign was kind of a no-brainer. To get his answer, all he needs to do is put on the local evening news.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 2:29 pm ¶
ieishah wrote:

can i give it to you raw? i just spent the last 11 minutes thinking that sometimes i can’t take black people. we’ll start a riot over the use of the n-word, but remain silent when a boy is shot outside his own home in broad daylight?

i speak 3 languages. i’m learning a fourth. in none of those languages is one word so powerful. that pisses me off.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 2:33 pm ¶
jmn wrote:

Wow, this is film plays on so many levels, and I’m still processing what I just saw. Sean hit on a great point about the neighborhood lacking empathy and being indifferent to all that has happened until the sign. And as Cornel West said on the Colbert Report, “Indifference is the one trait that makes the very angels weep. Indifference is the essence of inhumanity. Indifference to evil is more insidious than evil itself.”

On another level, I saw the character of Daniel as someone who is crying out and acting out in an explosive way as possible, as a cry for help or a cry for attention. It’s not that different from kids in school who act up and cause the most problems because they are seeking attention.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 2:41 pm ¶
Sean wrote:

6.dersk wrote:

@Sean: I saw the father putting up the sign as just an outlet for the rage of his grief (a good friend of mine just lost his daughter after about 30 minutes – really sad story – and I’ve seen him going through the same process).

Absolutely. Daniel’s grief and rage at the loss of his son is certainly understandable, as well as the seeming apathy of the community… including an Asian-American store owner. Perhaps that was Daniel’s point: to bring attention to his plight, whereas before there was none. Still, his question is a no-brainer. Ask Amadou Diallo’s mother.

BTW, my sincerest condolences to your friend. No parent should ever have to bury their kid…ever.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 3:02 pm ¶
Helen wrote:

My first reaction was as a Canadian. Most Canadians like to boost (and pretend) that racism and racial tensions of the type in the US doesn’t exist here. Bogus. I can see this episode also happening in Toronto or Montreal, but perhaps between different racial groups.

My impression of race relations in the US is that it’s generally seen as black vs. white, stemming from the history of slavery. Only recently has Latino populations have gone from migrant workers to a substantial American racial contingent… and Asian Americans and other ethnic minorities are still generally outside of racial discourses. To me the title really speaks to what I see: “If I was you.” There’s still virtually no narrative about Asian Americans in American race relations, except as passive victims or quiet store owners who get robbed by (usually) poor Black American youth.

I was struck by the lack of context, though, when it came to the young black men who were bullying the son. They were presented simply as evil thugs. What were their stories? Crime, poverty and racism is linked… How have these pressures affected them that they resort to violence? By seeing them only as bullies and gangs, what violence do we do to them?

The final scene with the white cop was sooooo striking. The cop’s whiteness was symbolic of the state and other governing institutions which are white dominant… and it comes into the racial tension as the arbitrator. The cop puts the father back in his place: the gentle, passive Asian American male who doesn’t complain. The model minority, like the shop owner who didn’t want the photo up in his shop and stir up trouble.

And what about the neighbours? The Black American mob? I don’t know how to feel about where they are situated here. The cop seems to protect them from the threat of violence by the father but also the symbolic threat of the N word… and yet N word originates from slavery by the whites! So maybe that entire stand-off erases the history of violence by white America on black Americans…

It’s a really interesting film. I had to flip to another window and just listen to the sound at times because it made me uncomfortable. The father’s grief and frustration is very palpable.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 3:07 pm ¶
prettypithy wrote:

Latoya, where is your review on Precious? Did I miss it? This is the second item on this film and it looks great but I’m way more curious what you have to say about Precious.

Mod Note – Stay on topic, please. I haven’t written a review of Precious yet, which is why you haven’t seen it anywhere. And the first part will be on Jezebel. – LDP

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 3:26 pm ¶
Karen wrote:

Im from Chicago myself so when I saw the sign I thought, “We cant even protect our own so yes, your son would still be dead. maybe even earlier on”
Then tapes of the “model minority” began to play with two conflicting feelings. One of feeling that East Asian Americans in a situation of violence would get more of a benefit of doubt than a black male would.

And yet, the violence against Asian Americans is very real. However being a black woman from the south side makes me identify with the woman in this video who was the only one who brought up the fact that someone probably saw something but didnt say anything about it. but they shut her down. I see very little people talking about her and how her voice was silenced by the male crowd.

And lastly, I was angry. Angry at the fact that these guys have the nerve to get angry over that word being used but they want to ignore everything else that would make this man’s anger make a lot more sense

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 4:05 pm ¶
Roy wrote:

As an Asian who did not heed the perverse and cowardly logic of White flight to the suburbs,I would attribute the murder of the son to the system failing that community as a whole be it predominantly Black with Asians and Hispanics interspersed within.
I will make one additional observation tho and i.e. their families failed the boys too for them to have their priorities so wrong. The bloody past of this country continues to haunt various communities without any redress from the original perps just as in European Colonialism and it effects in Africa today.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 4:07 pm ¶
blackscholar wrote:

As a black woman I am sometimes very angry at the black community for perpetuating stereotypes in the media.I don’t know why some blacks feel it is okay to use racial slurs and be bullies to other ethnic communities.I feel that economic circumstances and racism are not valid excuses to treat someone badly.When there are discussions about race the interethnic racism is never spoken about.But it is a vey real issue and is a huge problem.If an individual has had a negative expeience with one ethnic group then that individual views everyone in that group the same.

@Karen I totally agree with this statement.

“And lastly, I was angry. Angry at the fact that these guys have the nerve to get angry over that word being used but they want to ignore everything else that would make this man’s anger make a lot more sense.”

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 4:28 pm ¶
Orchid wrote:

my race does not influence how I see this film to the same extent as the fact that I am an immigrant. But It was definitely easier for me to sympathize with the main character than the mob. He was powerless in that situation, so he pulled the only piece of privilege he had, and that was with the N word. Even then I don’t understand how anything of substance comes from calling people the N word because they will not do what you need them to.
You know, maybe that sign isn’t really ignorance on the part of the main character. That’s what makes it so human, because it seemed more like he pulled out the worst most offensive thing he could think of. Maybe the sign is more for the audience to think about the answer. Maybe it is actually meant to highlight the fact that no matter what ethnic group you belong to, if you are impoverished we are all in the same pot. There is a subtle hint of an attempt at unity lurking under the surface, but I worry that is being crowded by a lot of knee jerk reactions on both sides.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 4:39 pm ¶
Moni wrote:

What a striking movie. As I watched, I felt myself reacting from various identity markers, I suppose. Coming into the movie and at the beginning, I was just hoping that the black mob wouldn’t say or do anything too stupid or hurtful. I was thankful for the black woman who tried to be a voice of reason ( I am a black woman, btw). I was also thankful for the black men who tried to be peacemakers, even though it was interesting that only the black father and the older black man were peaceful or reasonable…the other black men were angry and violent. I think that plays into the sense that black men in general are violent, unless they possess certain characteristics that mark them as being “different” from your run of the mill black man on the street. So for the first part I was in “please don’t make black folk look bad” mode.

Once the main character was shown interacting with his son, I began to identify with him….I am the single mother of a 12 year old boy, and I am well aware of the danger that could confront him…..this type of situation is my worst nightmare, and I don’t know how I would react if I knew folks had info but refused to share cause of that “no snitching” crap. The characters’ races were of no consequence to me by this point…I wanted justice for the father and I wanted compassion from the mob and the cop.

It was interesting that the father was an ex con. I don’t know, it almost felt as though the movie/director/ or what have you was saying that this is what happens to people who get caught up in the criminal justice system…I know of a number of children who have died on the streets, and none of them came from parents who were incarcerated. This violence effects everyone. I may be stretching it a bit here, but was what I felt as I watched the movie.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 5:13 pm ¶
BayanIzumi wrote:

What struck me (along with what everyone else has pointed out) was the presentation of cycles. How Daniel got out of prison just to go back. How the cop had the power to chose to do nothing at first and then come later to make an arrest. How the violence of the teens was reflected in the adults. There was that one scene where the little boy was crying for his dad but his dad ignored him. I thought that was a wonderful opportunity to set an example for the future generation but it seems like the cycle of violence will be passed to him. I feel like it is very representative of the cycle of oppression from systematic to personal and back again. I think Daniel’s sign may have been his way to attempt to break the cycle.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 5:40 pm ¶
Slush wrote:

@Sean #7 – yeah, and I guess I was also wondering how our different initial interpretations were colored by our own race. (Although also I stopped it when I saw the kid arguing with his father before heading out of the house with a baseball bat, and thus got a different amount of information, too. That’s surely relevant. I stopped because I could see what it was leading to and it was too painful and tragic for me to watch.)

But am I (white, female) conditioned to see Black men as more likely ‘perpetrators’ than Asians? I don’t think so, actually, after spending plenty of time alone and intimidated in Southeast Asia. But it’s thoroughly possible.
Or am I responding to my deepseated fear of mobs of any color?
Or to my instinct to sympathize with someone who seems outnumbered?

Meanwhile your thoughts reflected more attention to the experience of the black men in the film and how they experience the bad things that happened to this kid and his dad too.

It was particularly your question about why the man put up that sign and what he hoped to get out of it that caught my attention. You could read that as suggesting that the man kind of asked for what he got, or you could read it as a more literal question about how he could have thought it up and why in fact he decided to do it.

I kind of assumed you meant the latter, and agree with the assessment that it was just kind of a raw expression of rage and grief. But maybe you were suggesting it was the product of the dad’s [possibly violent] background, that this was the way he thinks things should be resolved.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 6:28 pm ¶
Mieko wrote:

It struck me as a very lonely piece. The father and son were isolated from their community- as evidenced by the son’s bullied status and the sea of angry neighbors surrounding the father. The father and son were also isolated from each other. The store owner, obviously familiar with the father, could have helped him- yet he chose to isolate himself in order to keep out of trouble. Lastly, the crying child at the end was isolated from his (her?) father, and crying for him to come back.
It was really interesting to think how differently things might have gone, had people taken the effort or the time to connect on a human level, rather then allow themselves to be divided by fear and anger.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 6:53 pm ¶
Nneka wrote:

I’m Nigerian and I would have liked nothing more than to round up all those Black people and beat them until they confessed. I don’t care what race you are nothing gives you the right to take someone’s child away from them and on top of that nothing gives you the right to protect the killer and let him walk around in broad daylight when someone has been permanently robbed of their child.

That is MESSED UP. Yeah, I’m Black like them but I would TOTALLY rat them out. There is NO PLACE for racial solidarity in this case, none at all. I know there are other reasons for people not telling when things like this happen but hell, I don’t care if you freaking match my skin cell for cell if you killed someone’s child I am TELLING ON YOU and SPITTING ON YOU and CURSING YOU TO HELL.

I actually cried watching this. It was so sad.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 7:10 pm ¶
Keith wrote:

1. How much does your race influence how you perceive this film?

I’ll be honest when I saw “If I were a nigger like you would my son be dead” in the preview Youtube image for the first video, I was a little annoyed, you know being black and all. However, once I got passed it, and actually watched the film, I didn’t actually see race as being an issue. To me the issue was the problems of crime in working class neighborhoods. When it comes to crime many times people are too afraid to speak up because of retaliation. It obvious that the son was somehow involved with the guys that first attacked him whether he was holding money for them, selling drugs, or some other illegal activity. The father also spent sometime in jail, if the son would have lived theirs a good chance he would have headed down the same road. Really the only thing separating the Asian American father and the members of the black community he lives in is the color of his skin. It could be said that he answered his own question because in all intent and purposes he is a nigger. I think he gets the realization of this when he sees the young boy crying for his father.
2. How does this film factor into the conversations we attempt to have about the Things We Do to Each Other? As in, discussions of interracial tension that occurs between nonwhite groups?

I think the film itself might point out that we suffer from the same issues whether we like to admit it or not. In other words we all came here in different ships but we are all in the same boat.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 7:51 pm ¶
Anna wrote:

I do have to agree with Sean on this one: what did the man want with this sign? not to say “he got what he deserved”, Slush, but because it definitely was a cry for reaction, for change. The father seemed very ready for confrontation too. (By the way, is he the only one with a first name?) He wanted something to happen. (he could have asked a respected member of the black community to help instead.)

There would be a lot more to say, but it is not easy, for all the actors have so many different roles they play, not only inside but also outside of their community. Victim, but also actors in some way. Unfortunately, only few attempts try to break with the cycle of violence, or action/reaction scheme that seems at work.

I understand the fathers anger and loneliness. It’s even more enraging/disappointing not to see anyone coming to his home and helping after his son died. Could he have reached out for help, from elders or pastors etc. from the black community? Why didn’t we see a neighbour come say condolecences? a neighbourhood-community could have been build, couldn’t it? instead of those dividing lines (pushing him into loneliness and despair).

I wonder, would it have changed something if the police-officer were black? would he have “pushed” the investigations more?

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 7:59 pm ¶
CJ wrote:

Yes, I’m glad so many agree that its alright to take your anger out on a whole community for an injustice suffered by another.The next time someone calls your kid,brother ,sister , father, mother,etc a racial slur, realize it’s only someone venting. All those people should be beaten because they all saw something they dont work or go to school. In fact that kid should be the first because he was probably outside playing when it all happened. This is the kind of tatic all authorities should use to gain information and justice, how else would we have caught Bin Laden?

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 8:21 pm ¶
Erika wrote:

I cried too; the acting was very convincing, and it made my heart break in ways that it wouldn’t if it had only been about a man whose son had died. The apathy of the people in the community was tragic, as was the fact that nobody tried to help the father. Lack of solidarity among POC is a huge problem, yes, but a bigger issue seems to be the system which keeps former felons and poor people down, and treats them as second-class citizens. None of what happened in the movie would have occurred if people in the lower-income communities were treated fairly.

In NYC I’ve seen a lot of Black-on-Asian racism/bigotry; sometimes it’s openly hostile. I have also heard Asians speak unabashedly about their disdain of Blacks. It’s unfortunate that there are people out there who lack empathy and understanding, and just don’t see that there are common experiences among POC.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 8:47 pm ¶
Sonic wrote:

I’m an Asian-American female.

This movie made me think that there will never be true harmony between the races. We’ll make inroads, but as long as there are such visible differences between us, there will never be true compassion and communication, no matter how far we may go.

I didn’t get vitriolically angry at the black people, but the scenes with the punks kissing on the photo of the woman and making “sexy” comments really seemed authentic to me and made me disgusted. That’s what punks would do in real life if they saw a photo like that.

And I’ll admit, seeing those younger black guys screaming and angry made me nervous for Daniel, more so than if they were Asian, I think, but if they had been Hispanic or white I would have felt the same level of nervousness as well. I think for me, it’s because it’s so ingrained in my mind that those are the more violent races and I feel like “my own kind” wouldn’t do that to a fellow Asian. The older black guy, wearing the camel-colored jacket, didn’t make me wary and the dad with his daughter didn’t either.

I also kind of wished he hadn’t dropped the bat. In a twisted way, I wished he would have just done suicide-by-cop or jumped at someone. Not sure if I can explain this – I guess because I hated to see Daniel, on his knees, defeated. I hated that a white cop took Daniel down. The cop acted professionally and fine, but I felt like it was saying the way things are, we needed whitey in this situation to come and save the day. “Make that uppity Asian submit!” kind of jumped out at me. I also got the feeling like the white cop was also trying to make sure Daniel didn’t get hurt and actually trying to protect Daniel FROM the black people, even though he was the one with the bat, like a subtle nod to the fact that black people are “just more violent”.

I understand why Daniel put up the sign and my sympathy lies with him. I don’t think he was doing it to be racist, but to, like you said, get a reaction, get something to happen which would help him find closure about his son’s brutal death.

This film didn’t make me angry, it made me sad, thinking about how hard a road we have before racial tensions between minorities will make any progress.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 8:50 pm ¶
Sonic wrote:

*Sorry in my 3rd to the last paragraph, I meant to put:

like a subtle nod to the “fact”

(because obviously it is not a fact that black people are more violent)

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 8:54 pm ¶
Bellabie wrote:

Wow.
First, thank you for sharing this. It’s a painful but powerful piece of art that leaves viewers in tears. Thank you.
I will admit, my first reaction to this piece, at its conclusion, was that the sign that the character, Daniel, had made should have been protected speech, however offensive (particularly as it was private property), but that may vary between states. Also, the bat would have been an item of self-defense. Daniel did not injure anyone with it, so the police officer shouldn’t have gone after him, to begin. I will concede that, actually and aggressively using “nigger” to address people gathering could be disorderly conduct, and Daniels lack of heed to the officer’s commands would grant the ability to restrain him.
(North Dakota has made available an appellee brief which reads: “H.K. merely saying the word ‘nigger’ is protected speech under the First Amendment. The petitioner concedes that H.K. is free to stand on the steps of the courthouse and shout ‘nigger”‘one hundred times over. This type of speech has been protected by the Supreme Court time and time again. “)
I feel as though the skin colours and otherwise appearances of the characters were fairly irrelevant, excepting that I may be more familiar with that casting. I don’t think that my race (I tend to refrain from using the word because I am one of those that aims to move past racism, entirely) affected my viewing. Certainly, clear distinctions were made, in the film, between peoples of different appearances, but I believe that the group(s) could have been united by any number of arbitrary characteristics and the truth communicated would have been the same.
I continue to be in awe of this short.
b

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 9:10 pm ¶
Kat wrote:

Comment #21-Nneka said:I’m Nigerian and I would have liked nothing more than to round up all those Black people and beat them until they confessed.
********************

uhh…ok, Guantanamo Bay is hiring.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 9:44 pm ¶
Cindy wrote:

I would say my race comes into play by who I might identify with and/or by who might make me cringe because of their actions.

The answer to the question on the sign is a definite yes. Young black men die in the same senseless ways.

How this film factors in?? That’s a huge question. Is the father’s rage any different than a black father in the same situation? Blame becomes a focus. Someone else asked this question too, What did he want to achieve with the sign? I think this is the kind of irrational act that can and does arise out of extreme grief.

Are we more disturbed by the mob mentality because they are all black? all black men? Doesn’t this play into the stereotypical fear of black men? The young girl is the anti-mob quickly silenced.

I find the older man who approaches and pleads for him to take the sign down is experiencing multiple sets of disquiet. He cares for the grieving father and doesn’t want him hurt. He also is pained by the hatred in the sign and needs it to come down for his own peace.

The silence of the neighbors is not unique. Six women dead in Ohio is proof of that. Add in the danger of living in neighborhoods ruled by gangs and speaking out requires a greater level of courage. We can be critical of their silence, but most of us don’t live with their fear.

Is racial equality just that or are we still clinging to the idea that racial equality is a small island that is quickly running out of room? On the same vein is someone’s grief greater than another because it crossed racial lines? Do we really need to amp up the loss of a child? Can we “excuse” the grieving father for his ugly and volatile expression? Is important if the father is Chinese, Vietnamese or Korean? Does that change the perspective?

I’ll stop here because clearly I have more questions about my own perspective than answers.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 9:52 pm ¶
Keith wrote:

Am I missing something here? I mean we saw what the Asian American kid was involved in, the father was a criminal himself. The same issues many black males deal with in that same neighborhood. They live were crime is probably frequent, but most people don’t speak up, which happens in many communities that are disenfranchised. Yet everyone is stuck on freedom of speech and black on Asian tension. While I think that an honest discussion on these issues is needed, this film goes beyond those 2 issues. I think posters are being too reactionary.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 10:12 pm ¶
Jeffrey wrote:

I agree this was a very powerful peice and am glad I got to see it. It seems to me that most of the comments so far trying to figure out why the father wrote the sign or the group of man reacted the way they did assumes that these were rational thoughts and this seems like a mistake. I don’t think any real thought was put into the making of the sign and the reaction was the raw emotion that someone putting up a sign like that would spark. Of course I have no way of truly knowing as I have to look at this through my race and background. Not only am I a white male but my father was a policeman. It seems to me a failing of all the people involved, more understanding from any of the groups could have helped but none are the main cause. I know that not many have said much about the officer other then he could have pushed harder on the investigation (and I agree he could have) but he may feel powerless to actually get anywhere with it because of the overall attitude that exists. He was one patrolmen who just did not have much power to do anything. As far as him taking the father into custody, I am not a lawyer or police officer but that did seem like the fastest and maybe safest way to end the confrontation, not only protecting the father but also the group of men and even himself. I would like to think that was the officers thinking in doing that.

This seems like an example of how the whole system is screwed up, from top to bottom. By system I mean not only the justice and prison system or even how the poor are treated but how we all need to step back to understand why someone does what they do and not just how things relate to what I think.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 10:42 pm ¶
Calvin wrote:

Meh…. wasn’t really moved by the short film. Thought that it really didn’t have much of a point/moral/story/etc:

“helpless” non-blk kid attack/kidnapped/murdered by the “big bad black guys”… father/family is hurting, so he acts out of character, but is still seen as the victim becuz of what he’s been thru.

I didn’t really get what the filmmaker was trying to say since the film left out alot (like the Asian’s involvement in the whole altercation).

As for my feelings towards the film becuz of my race (African-American), I couldn’t really get anything from it. But I will say that I thought it allowed viewers to pity the Asian charcters and reinforced negative feeling/emotions towards the black community (you can see it in the comments here).

Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 12:39 am ¶
Robin wrote:

My reaction is that it was overstated, hastily written, poorly acted, sloppily directed, and the nonlinear framing is a cheap gimmick that adds nothing to the film. The only selling point is the controversy, and even that is addressed in a shallow and uninteresting fashion.

Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 12:44 am ¶
jen* wrote:

After getting through the tears, I’ll admit, as did others, that my race primarily informed my first reaction to the sign. As the story moved forward, I felt pain for all involved, really. I got the impression that the young boy was involved in some dealings with the bullies and owed them money for something or other. But I felt horrified again at the assault on the picture of his mother.

In light of the things-we-do-to-each-other meme, the treatment of the photograph was just another way to demonstrate how marginalized people can absorb harmful ideas about other minorities/women in the same society. It hurts my heart that there might be a scenario like this that has actually played out [prior to the sign being hung], because no one wins – everybody loses.

A glaring message to me seemed to be that children are crying out for their fathers, for their parents, and some may be too busy with their own interests, their own anger, to pay attention. And that defies racial barriers – children are dying from all communities.

But I also was angry to see the policeman pull a gun on the bereaved/angry father. Holding a bat in your front yard isn’t illegal, is it? I can see how the sign could lean more toward inciting a riot, but not the bat.

My general feeling was that the young thugs did not view the boy as truly human. And once they killed the boy, his father didn’t see the bullies as truly human. His last effort to crawl into his own son’s chalk outline was it for me, and I was all torn up. And I couldn’t understand why the mob didn’t stand down.

Anger festers and grows when left unchecked/undealt with. Multiply that into a mob, and you’ve got a powder keg. A sad story with no immediate solution.

Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 12:58 am ¶
k wrote:

I agree with Karen. I don’t think that there was a need for the sign. Additionnally, I don’t beleive that the death of this boy is different from the death of many black boys in neighbourhoods throughout the US and in some parts of Toronto. The culture of silence and the fear within these communities is such that no one speaks out regardless of the race of the victim. I did not link the community silence to race (again, because silence is the norm in the vast majority of cases). I actually found it offensive that the film linked this silence to the race of the victim, while it may serve as an additional rationale for some to keep quite, I do not it is the main factor.

Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 1:20 am ¶
AMB wrote:

my initial thought with “if i was a…”
was YES he still would be dead. I felt as if the son just so happened to be Asian. If you screw up a deal, no matter your color you probably will end up dead.
I felt like overall, the short film wasnt that great. It just seemed to be lacking content and i didnt experience much connection with it. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that i did not grow up in the U.S. and this type of thing is something i only observe in movies. Or perhaps it just wasnt a very moving film. The only part i felt any sort of emotion was when he lied on the ground where his son died.

my background is a navy brat with a Black American father and a Japanese mother. I understand the power that can be put in to the N word or any other racial slur. I can also understand why the father was angry but i wonder about his method of gaining attention. -maybe if it were a white man i would have felt more affected?

I also felt the White cop was so random.
And finally, maybe because i noticed one of the actors from a couple of reality shows i got disconnected (Tila’s shot of love, and Janice Dickenson’s modeling show)

Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 1:56 am ¶
Restructure! wrote:

I thought the sign would make some sense at the end, but it never did. Isn’t the answer obviously “yes” from the beginning?

The absurdity of the sign gets in the way of my suspension of disbelief, and it makes me think of it as an unrealistic piece of fiction rather than an insight into Things We Do To Each Other. (However, I did tear up from the acting.)

I thought that Daniel betrayed his friends by putting up the sign. Someone killed his son, the killer is assumed to be black, and he lashes out on everyone who shares the same presumed skin color. He really has not befriended any black person.

I also thought, “I ain’t going be able to stop these brothers,” was a strange piece of script. Is Daniel the type of person who assumes that one black person can control other black people via hive mind? If yes, and his black “friend” is reacting to this, then Daniel already has some racist issues. But we already know this because of the sign. Maybe it’s that Daniel doesn’t know his “black” friend doesn’t have superpowers, but that is unlikely.

I expected Daniel to speak with an accent, but refreshingly, he didn’t. I expected the old Asian man to speak with an accent, but he didn’t. This is good, because Heavily-Accented Old Asian Man with Ancient Wisdom would be a stereotype.

In the first scene with Daniel, I thought to myself, “Oh look, another uneducated Asian making our race look ignorant.”

Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 2:00 am ¶
Kyle wrote:

To be honest, the first thing that popped into my head was that the questions, while important, were insufficient. You can’t just ask how a person’s race has affected how they percieve something without also taking into consideration how the environment they have experienced affects it as well. How we react in regards to our race depends quite a bit on how we’ve been treated in regards to our race, as well as how we’ve been taught to react and interpret those experiences, both of which depend on environment (both family as well as surrounding). To just ask about race implies that everyone of a given race had the same upbringing, cultural background, socio-economic status, and surrounding population. And that’s just not true.

That said, in this movie I saw a man in a lot of pain. What he did wasn’t smart, but he was hurt, angry, and probably not thinking the most logically. Under the circumstances he probably figured that any sort of action was better than simply having his son’s death ignored. At least this way people had to come out and confront him. If it got ugly, so be it, he at least would get to release some of his pain and rage. That, plus perhaps getting pummeled would serve as punishment for outliving his son. Not right, but like I said, it wasn’t exactly a moment of clarity. A man’s instinct is to attack threats to what he cares about. Without a clear target, one can lose their way. I appreciated the fact that some of the older men from the neighborhood seemed to recognize that fact when they tried to get him to stop, unlike the young men who reacted quite naturally with their guts.

The officer just seemed out of place. Admittedly, some of this is my skepticism of only one cop showing up, and then said cop turning his back to a group of enraged people. Still, he seems to be a man uncertain. It might not have been the director’s intent, but I find it fitting. With the extreme focus on white/black racial tension in this country, one could almost believe it was the only racial issue that exists. It would not surprise me if given such circumstances as this many white people were at a loss as how to react. It’s good to recognize that our country is more complex than the media would have us believe. Every group can – and at times is – racist towards everyone else. On average, white people just have more opportunity.

Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 2:29 am ¶
K wrote:

To be honest with you, I usually avoid films like this.

I almost never see a film where black men and Asian men seem to actually get along in any neighborhood, and although it is changing, you rarely see any love stories about Asians and blacks together. It’s always a struggle. There’s always fear.

Is it really this way?

It seems like Asian + black = violence and fear (with blacks the ones who are violent and needing to be feared) whereas ideas of Asians and whites are framed by assimilation and not being American enough (with white Americans being prejudiced and/or benevolent/love interests).

It’s disheartening. And to answer Daniels question: Yes, his son would still be dead if he were a “nigger”.

Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 2:52 am ¶
yassibassu wrote:

I think I was expecting more from the film, and I came off a little disappointed with it. I did like that it attempted to address What We Do To Eachother, but at the same time, I don’t feel like I learned anything new from the story.

My main problems with the execution of the story was that “The Blacks” were stereotypes of thuggery, who were not named or given any character traits or back story, as some others have said. If they had given some back story, it would have made the cathartic moment at the end with the black son crying out more poignant. I see what they were trying to accomplish, but it fell short a bit because you weren’t invited to empathize with any of the black characters.

There should have been a shared moment of “what are we doing to ourselves?” that needed, perhaps the older black gentleman, to relate some story of his own loss in the past. That would have made this a story about the struggles of poverty, crime, and discrimination first, and neighborhood racism second.

The “why, you awful black people, why?” element turned me off in a big way, and it’s too bad that sharp edge wasn’t rounded off a bit. I really didn’t understand why loan sharks/drug dealers/extorters took the kid’s pants. What good are a teenager’s pants to sell?

The only real attempt to qualify the situation of the black characters was the brief shout when the cop pulled the gun on the father. “you woulda been shot if you was black”, suggesting the relationship between blacks and the police/state in the neighborhood. I just felt those few words wasn’t enough. If the thugs that beat the boy up had been shown trying to deal with poverty/racism before the beating scene, it would have done more to grey the moral lines, which I think the film was trying to do. I just don’t think it fulfilled what they were trying to accomplish…but i got a little whiff of the intent.

Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 3:35 am ¶
IronOxideCorset wrote:

Race is often the most powerful message people see, even if it is erroneous. But other messages come into play, such as gender or age. The black woman, the older black men and the black child, who both had legitimate messages, were completely voiceless and ignored.

The only message that ever caused a reaction (or lack of action from anyone) was actual violence or the threat of perceived violence. The boy who was killed was provoked by violence. The store clerk didn’t want to put the sign up out of perceived violence. Many in the community were silent out of a threat of perceived violence.

It is interesting that the only thing that stopped the matter was a white cop with a gun. I suppose that is the ultimate threat of violence that supersedes the previous violence. I feel like the film shows how the powers of violence and race almost always trumps reason, communication, and empathy.

Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 4:05 am ¶
dersk wrote:

@CJ: *Understanding* behavior is different than *condoning*, you know.

@Erika: “None of what happened in the movie would have occurred if people in the lower-income communities were treated fairly.”

Perhaps the result would have been different, but kids getting beat up and humiliated happens all the time and (I think) is about alpha male pack behavior, not so much about race.

Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 7:04 am ¶
Afro-chan wrote:

Background: Black female

A lot went through my head. I am not sure how much was influenced by being black.

1) WTF? Everyone is getting up and in arms over the N-word used by a man whose son was shot in cold blood in front of his house and no one sees anything nor wants to help. Where was this anger when the kid was shot down? My first reaction was Daniel can do whatever hell he wants. He at least should get that.

2) Half of the guys in that group probably drop the N-bomb on the regular anyway and/or use racial slurs habitually when referring to Asians.

3) The voice of reason is female but no one wants to listen to her.

4) Watching that little boy calling his Dad from across the street was heartbreaking because he was scared.

5) The black father, shopkeeper, older black man and female seemed to be the only ones concerned with Daniel’s feelings and safety (and that is sad).

6) Cops…great job (sarcasm) make a mob more hyped up. Better still, arrest a man on his own property.

7) People who should be watching this film are not the kind of people who frequent a site like Racialicous.

8 ) My heart hurts.

Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 7:25 am ¶
TN wrote:

After reading these comments… I am now too scared to watch the videos. Not because it will change my mind about Asians or Blacks or anyone but watching people who look like me ie. Asian get beaten up and die in a racially charged context always freaks me out for days… it’s like, I can’t trust anyone *paranoid* eg. I can’t watch Romper Stomper ever again…

Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 9:50 am ¶
Slush wrote:

@Bellabie

For the record, free speech is less protected on private property, not more so.

Not that that I think hate speech should be protected to begin with.

Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 10:52 am ¶
zakiya wrote:

interracial tension that occurs between non-white groups is one of the most disturbing things i have been forced to grow up participating in and viewing. For the most part, living in the bay area, moving from daly city to oakland i have witnessed tension between blacks and latinos and blacks and asians.

This film draws on a couple of elements that are thought provoking. Why as the “non-whites” the oppressed groups must we as a community of colored folks fight for the limited space we already have? Where and when is it going to turn around and we all fight with each other?

As a black woman i know that my black brothers and sisters and I myself have taken our anger out our Asian American brothers and sisters. I think there is many correlating issues though. First there is a sterotype that Asian Americans are on the same level as Whites. Asian Americans are passive and they would “never” fight back. In the bay area its not difficult for that stereotype to be nourished. Go up to Laney community college, its predominatley asian, Go up to UC berkeley it seems that its mostly asian students attending.

I believe there may be this hidden concern, or worry between the black and asian communities. Blacks may believe that asians are coming up in the world and have more privelages than we do. Asians are defending their selves saying we are still just as oppressed as you. but there is no common ground instead we just take it out on each other.

Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 11:32 am ¶
teaspoon wrote:

You asked us to comment about how our race affects our reaction to the film. As a mixed but self-identifying Native American, I see a lot of racism between people in my tribe and other groups. There is racial tension between tribal members and latinos, especially in the schools. I’m part of the camp that ascribes to the belief that “they didn’t cross the border; the border crossed them”. There are a growing number of NA’s from all tribes that see indigenous (and mixed) peoples from the southern Americas as our brothers and sisters; but many others who do not.

I strongly believe that infighting between people of color strongly demeans the greater goal of racial equality. I really wish that more people felt the same way.

Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 12:59 pm ¶
MissaA wrote:

I’m not sure what to make of this film. I’m not sure what to make of the racial aspect. I think the answer to the question posed by the title is: “very likely, yes.” – black-on-black violence happens (obviously). And communities are often silent in the face of violence – which I think has more to do with their relationship with the police than the identity of the victim. So I’m not entirely sure what the racial aspect adds to the scenario.

Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 12:59 pm ¶
Shelby wrote:

My first reaction was just confusion. I really didn’t understand what the “punchline” (sorry my mind is drawing a blank on words) was supposed to be. And then I was confused because I felt that (as a Black American) my reaction to the sign was “supposed” to be or assumed to be indignation or something. I mean…thinking of my fam and the Black ppl I grew up around…I think the majority reaction to the sign would be, “That poor man…just let him be, ya’ll.” But I’m willing to concede that maybe I’m being overly optimistic.
And yes, the “no-snitching” thing hurts immeasurably for people who want justice for loved ones. But I just see it as a mal-adaptive survival tool that wouldn’t exist if state violence and poverty weren’t killing POC& poor people on the regular. I don’t really think telling Black people (or whoever) to cooperate w/ police more fixes the problem.

Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 1:05 pm ¶
teaspoon wrote:

*** Sorry, I got so caught up in explaining my point of view that I forgot to describe my reaction to the film.

I don’t think that Daniel believed that his son’s murder was entirely racially motivated. I think he was race-baiting with the sign to try to get anyone to fess up.

I couldn’t help but wonder that if Daniel had been white, would he have been given more time and help from police? Would they have conducted a more thorough investigation? My Uncle, who was Alaska Native, was found hanging from his neck in his apartment building. It was immediately ruled a suicide and the investigation was closed, despite desperate pleas from my family for a more thorough investigation including the possibility of homicide.

I also wondered, had Daniel been white, would he have been arrested for wielding a bat and threatening the police officer. It brought to mind the situation with Henry Gates. The black crowd wondered if he would have been treated worse had Daniel been black. I guess the common thread among people of color is that we always wonder how we will be treated by white authorities.

Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 1:21 pm ¶
Renee wrote:

Why is it okay for us to resort to expressing our rage/frustration etc. in the form of racial slurs??? Yes, I understand that when someone is grieving or is otherwise emotional that lashing out and desiring to hurt is not an unusual response but it is a learned one… and I know that the use of the n-word is just one of many aspects of this film, and yes I am reacting to it because of I have had that word used against me personally, but why is it okay for anyone outside of the black community to feel comfortable using this word?

Perhaps the filmmaker was trying to make the point that both the protagonist and the killers actions were informed by a racism that led them towards disregarding the humanity present in the “other”…but the construct of the film, which other posters have alluded to, allows us to empathize with the Asian protagonist while lumping together the other black characters as a one-note angry violent mob…

Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 2:47 pm ¶
LittleBee wrote:

I found this film to be extremely powerful because “other”-on-”other” violence is barely acknowledged and discussed, let alone portrayed in such mediums. I feel that the struggle against racial injustice is under the guise of solidarity (all coloured people against white hegemony) when in reality we harbour prejudices against one another that prevent us from really uniting. Asians being pitted against blacks and vice versa is nothing new; the mantra of colonialists was to “conquer and divide”. In order for Europeans to remain in power they recast the enemy by initiating racial tensions within the indigenous populace (for further reference, see pretty much every formally colonized country in the Caribbean- Guyana for starters). We can draw parallels between the past and the present in regards to the relationships between different racialized groups living in the West. The neocolonialist tactics of today dictate how people of colour ought to interact with another; these tactics entail further marginalizing the black populace by depicting Asians as “model minorities” and leading Asians to believe they will eventually be elevated to the status of whites if they separate themselves from other people of colour, namely blacks. This film exemplifies how these tactics can have deadly consequences within our community and redirect our energy away from rising up against systemic racism to putting each other down.
Honestly, this film had me in tears. I feel sick to my stomach thinking about how people of colour treat each other like shit when instead we should be banding together in resistance.

Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 3:56 pm ¶
brownstocking wrote:

Wow, until I read Calvin and Robin’s opinions, I was seriously thinking, “WTF? Is this supposed to be art?” I mean, I really had a GTFOHWTBS moment in minute 6.

Aesthetically, it was ham-handed, 2-dimensional, and just laborious, really.

Contextually, this did nothing for me. I don’t get why he’d make the sign, unless he was suicidal. Also, he’d be dead, and in some cowardly way, shot up house or something, not some mob-mentality-knee-jerk “oh no he di-ent say the N word!” bumrush.

The only character I was interested in HEARING from was the young woman (the only woman on screen, uh, why? Cuz we’re all working, only the men hang around during the day doing nothing? Did anyone notice she was actually trying to TALK about Daniel’s anger and confront the lack of witnesses? But, hey, isn’t that what we strong Black women do? Try to embrace everyone, clean up the shit, and move life along?

Another point someone made, I had no empathy for Daniel at all. Yes, I teared up, the mechanics of the final scene, I mean, a kid screaming “Daddy” was a trigger for me, but what type of dad sees some ill ish going down and doesn’t hustle his kid outta there? It seems he was a “good” Negro, and had sympathy, but he and the older “good” Negro played that scene all wrong. If Old School was respected in the hood, he would have been able to talk everyone to death until folks calmed down (I’ve seen it happen in RL) or at least knocked Daniel out and dragged him in the house! Yeah, that was my Hollywood version, he could have been the Magical Negro saving another POC this time! All to the good!

OMG, the white cop? If I was a white police officer (good one, culturally competent, etc) and I saw this and Crash, I would want to smack some directors around. I’m a victim’s advocate, so I see the effedupedness of police-citizen interactions, but this?! This was some SHULLBIT! Daniel’s PO would have been involved, caseworkers, etc. At least on the surface.

Did I think this resonated in intersectionalities and interethnic dialogues/conflicts? Nopers. Not at all. I think being a Black woman who’s grown up in diverse neighborhoods including “hood” hoods, this was shullbit. I don’t even care about how homogenously evil/ignant Black men looked because this is so garishly cartoonish, it’s laughable. Come on! Someone (50 I think) mentioned that folks would think “that poor man’s mind snapped” as the reaction. I agree. My mom would have taken a casserole over to him and talked him into taking the down the sign; they would have organized a Neighborhood Watch group; and, while, the killers might not be brought to justice, some community would have been formed. Sheesh!

As I wrap, because I am more agitated than I thought: the film does anger me, though, because I find it worse than Crash, and “at least that was pseudo-liberal white guy Haggis” who made that POS. A POC making this? THAT’s what hurts.

Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 4:09 pm ¶
SincereJustice wrote:

Peace,

1. Race has a huge influence on my everyday affairs, not only limited to watching this film. I’m considered by most as Asian-American/Chinese. However, I consider myself Black. Black as representative of non-white, people of color, indigenous people of the Earth. I do not associate myself to one land mass / continent.

What I’m saying is nothing new or shocking if you if you do some simple research into the Black Presence all over the planet Earth, whether in India, China, Philippines, and so forth.

Even Malcolm X had stated in ‘Black Man’s history’ that he refers to Black as non-white, not merely for the so called African American.

Note: When I say Black, I am in no way meaning African or African-American, I”m saying Black in representative of people of color. (and I also think someone in the previous blog w/o the actual film itself, “africameleon” had made a similar comment)

Here are some resources for you to check if you want to delve into this matter further:
African Presence in Early Asia by Runoko Rashidi (and the African presence series in general)
Race and Racism in the Chinas
Driven Out: The Forgotten War Against Chinese Americans
Everybody was Kung Fu Fighting

Also, FYI, in Los Angeles’ Chinatown, it actually used to be referred to as Calle de los Negros, Nigger Alley or Chinatown.

To answer the question now, my first reaction is: What are areas can we add-on to prevent stuff like this from happening and more cultural understanding amongst each other? I felt that the film was brief, yet there are many layers that can be interpreted in the film, which I felt it was the filmmaker’s intention to present the film in this way.

SincereJustice

Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 4:18 pm ¶
Christian Berntsen wrote:

To answer the first consideration: I’m white, in my thirties, and have lived a fairly easy life. The only thing I have going against me is the fact that I’m overweight–a situation that I also realize I have the power to change, though the prejudices there are very real (though for reasons I don’t really understand I managed to escape most ridicule and prejudice, at least openly). To say I haven’t even come close to a situation like this is an understatement. However, I could see in the film pain and emotion any person is capable of experiencing.

For the second consideration: It’s not a point of view I come from, and I am frankly not aware enough of the dynamics involved to think I will be of real value to the discourse here on it. That’s not to say I won’t offer an opinion, but it may well be one that gets revised in time as I learn more about myself and my views on race evolve (which I discuss below).

I can’t say I liked the film from a technical/storytelling point of view, I had problems with it on that end. There were most definitely avenues not explored and opportunities lost, but setting that aside the story itself brought feelings of frustration, anger, confusion. I could feel for Daniel, he suffered a tremendous loss. I don’t agree with the way he handled it but I see why he may have chosen that route. It amazes me the power of the word “nigger,” it’s incendiary and polarizing and ugly. I understand the power of words, but I also realize the flip side, which is we each ascribe the power they wield over us. As I was watching, when the sign first came into view my first thought was this was going to be trouble. By the end of the film, as the cop is pointing his gun at Daniel, and the crowd around them is yelling and shouting, I was thinking: “This is just a word, why did this have to escalate?”

This is where the frustration, anger and confusion came in for me. Why did Daniel feel he had to take such an aggressive stance? Why did the group continue to get louder and angrier when they knew what had happened? From my view most of the people in the crowd didn’t care why he did it, only that it was glaring down at them. I was glad those who did understand spoke up and tried to mediate it, even if it was only to calm the situation down. In the end I was also left feeling helpless. I often feel that way when it comes to race issues.

This year it’s been on my mind a lot as earlier on a huge discussion/debate/argument about it came out of my field of writing, the SF/F genre, which was dubbed Racefail ’09; and “If I Was Like You” has sort of punctuated that. These things have caused me to re-examine my views on race, and have brought a determination in me to learn more about how and why I view POC as I do (or don’t). I can’t say I don’t have racist thoughts, but I’m not sure where they come from because it’s not a place of hate. Fear of an unknown person or people plays into it, and societal views as well have seeped into my conscious. It’s disturbing to me, but more importantly, it’s merely symptomatic of the larger problem. I’m one guy who is working on his issues, and I can change my part in it. It’s getting everyone on board that’s the real problem.

Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 5:25 pm ¶
Crystal wrote:

One of my reactions: I’m glad that different viewpoints are being aired, even if it is on YouTube and not at a festival.

And I like to see multi-ethnic stories. Most of us — or most of us people of color, at least, live in multi ethnic spheres. It’s almost always interesting to me to see an artist’s perspective on how these worlds might overlap/interface.

My race: mixed. And yes, I’m sure that informs this particular reaction.

I want to give a shout-out to the actor who delivered the line, “If he was black, he woulda BEEN shot.” It wanted saying, in that context, didn’t it?

Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 6:02 pm ¶
Shelby wrote:

@Brownstocking: YES! Yeah, some people would act like assholes and spur on more violence, but their would also be compassion. Everyone’s mama would’ve made him some food and gone over to offer their condolences. Then the husbands/older men would’ve started a “Hey, man. We know it’s hard…” type of convo to try and convince him to take the sign down and not get shot. In the end, everyone would share their Cosby-esque opinion of “them lil hoodlums these days” and the other families affected by violence would mourn their personal loss once more along with the new loss of the community. And me and my brother would be grumbling in the background about how Mom was making us rake the guy’s leaves and deliver his mail for the next month.
That’s pretty much how it went when I lived in the city and there was this one elderly white lady on our street. She avoided all us negroes like the plague, but my dad still shoveled and salted her walk in the winter. Folks would take turns cutting her grass in the summer. And my mom would forever be asking us, “Did you say hello to Mrs. So-and-so today?” even though she KNEW that lady hated us w/ all her might.

Anyway, I’m running on 2hrs of sleep so I’m not really sure where I was going with this comment…but I guess my racial background makes me feel that this film just didn’t really go in depth into how a community mourns.

Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 6:16 pm ¶
BSK wrote:

A series of mistakes, by all involved. Who actually made any attempts at engaging those involved in the situation? The one older black man attempted to diffuse, but only by having the sign removed, not getting at the heart of the issue. The cop initially seemed genuinely interested in helping find the killers, but we really didn’t see any work on his behalf to institute change. The father reacted with intense anger that was entirely point outwards. The group of black men (and one woman, it looked like) went almost immediately to violence. And, on the second go around, the cop went right to his gun to intimidate the father into removing the sign.

Was this deliberate? I don’t know. Was it honest? For many of us, yes.

The message of his movie is so unclear. If it was a bit more explicit, perhaps we could understand its purpose and critique it from there. But absent that, I have to say overall the movie is a fail, as its potential to offend and enrage anger is too palpable. Is there value to it? Yes, and potentially a great deal. But its to ambiguous to ensure it does more good than harm.

Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 10:08 pm ¶
Kaonashi wrote:

This just made me angry. Angry and sad.

I’m tired of teens killing other teens for the hell of it, tired of people making excuses for these assholes, tired of seeing parents bury their children, tired of people consenting thru silence, tired of people with no imagination using racial slurs to get a rise out of people and to feel better about themselves.

Most of all, I’m tired of seeing people not being good to one another. The entire human race needs to do better.

Posted 05 Nov 2009 at 1:26 am ¶
Victor wrote:

Wow. Intense. Although I am Asian-American, I found myself not reacting to the racial issues so much as the immense frustration of the father. I saw this in a more global way– that this could be any of us in a situation where there are no answers, when the community, when the police/authorities are of no help– when you are all alone in an unsolvable dilemma. Racial tension in this case is the catalyst for the feelings, but we’ve all felt frustration and helplessness– although hopefully not to this extreme. You could almost believe the father would force the policeman to shoot him, just to finally be heard, to finally make a point. When it didn’t happen in the movie, that sense of frustration and helplessness just got worse for me. To me, that was the point– the futility, the helplessness (e.g. maybe nobody really did see who killed the son).

From an Asian-American perspective, I think that’s sometimes the problem with racial issues, or perceived racial issues– we need more social connection, more unity, more organization– when dealing with issues of this nature. There needs to be somewhere to turn. The Asian grocer, for example, elderly, a community leader, organizing others to put pressure on the police to look into things more deeply. Might that have assuaged the father?

Posted 05 Nov 2009 at 4:16 am ¶
Abarenbo Asian wrote:

You are all reading this movie as a serious exploration of race relations. I beg to differ. This short film is nothing but the beginning to a movie like _Death Wish_ or a whole host of Blaxploitation films. It’s all the same – law-abiding man, usually fresh out of jail or the military, is picked upon by thugs and the cops won’t protect him, and the neighborhood is too scared to fight back. The scene of the white cop arresting the sobbing and frustrated Asian man could come straight out of a Blaxploitation flick!
If I had access to more cash, I’d bankroll the logical conclusion of the film as an Asian American Blaxploitation flick – after the main character returns from prison (for defending his own property from the gang), he rounds up a posse of fellow Asians and a token black good guy, and proceeds to hunt down the gangsters who killed his son. Throw in a few token Asian bad guys (I”ll volunteer to be one) to deflect any criticism of this film as being racist, and make the citywide leader of the gang a white WASP crooked politician, and you have the makings of a straight-to-DVD film aimed at angry Asian males.
The scary thing is that there are so few roles for Asian men in the U.S. media that I could just see this Asian “Blaxploitation” (Asianploitation?) genre working! After all, this short film got all of you talking about how angry you feel, right? Make it a film about a white father wanting answers for his son’s death, and we’d call it racist demagoguery. But with an Asian main lead, it becomes a study in race relations.

Posted 05 Nov 2009 at 9:58 am ¶
joe joe wrote:

I just thought that it’s interesting how the man chooses life over death in the end. Here is a man that lost everything. He really has nothing to live for and yet…he chooses life over death. He decides to drop the bat and try to move forward. That’s the way I looked at it.

Posted 05 Nov 2009 at 12:55 pm ¶
pragmatic wrote:

What if the sign read “black” instead of “nigger”? I think the escalation in arguing and violence could have been drastically reduced between the father and the group. I think that would have sparked a discussion, where they could empathize with the father, possibly helping to bring the two cultural groups closer, instead of fueling the fire between the two by the use of nigger.

I understand the father has reached a point of frustration and anger that may lead to irrational actions, but I can guarantee that group of angry people weren’t even thinking about the murder, but are far more upset by the use of nigger.

Posted 05 Nov 2009 at 1:36 pm ¶
Lei wrote:

Sorry I didn’t read through all the comments, there are a lot. Still given what I’ve read I would like to make some observations.

I felt it was somewhat interesting that some people found the sign on up on the house to be implausible or unrealistic. I personally ran with it because it posed an interesting question . I think this is because of my background as an Asian American male who had some exposure to racism living in urban Canada, but then integrating into an Asian American Bay Area community when I moved to California. I didn’t experience the escalation of racial tensions as I grew older, but had some taste of it. On the other hand to try to bridge that gap I have taken some ethnic studies classes, though that outlook may be somewhat academic. This ambiguity and incompleteness of experiences I think has taught me to not take my own self believed realities for granted. Through that I’ve found that sometimes we cling too closely to the realities we accept, and miss what could be lurking underneath. For some people the answer of the sign was obvious, but the fact that throughout this conversation we’ve had both yes and nos to the sign I think points out how it may be less obvious than we thought. Beneath it all I think that reveals an underlying gap in understanding and perspective between not just groups (racial or whichever) and communities, but also individuals within and outside these larger denominations. I’ve always personally felt it was useful to suspend your own sense of reality and try run with the what if, if only to understand the logical conclusions of those hypotheticals.

For example, some people have answered that the obvious answer was “Of course he wouldn’t have been treated differently if he was black”. But what if he would have been? And even if he wouldn’t why might some people (perhaps like the father in the film) believe that he would have? (It’s not just about what the facts are, which themselves can be hazy. It’s also about why people believe those “facts”) The vice versa of course could also be asked. What if he wouldn’t have been treated differently? Why would some people believe that? Though it’s good to try to use your own experiences to try to find these answers, I feel like sometimes we use our own experiences to shelter ourselves from the experiences of others. Keith and a few others had brought up a really good point of fear in the community as an explanation rather than racial (fair or unfair) solidarity, something I didn’t think of upon my initial viewing of the film. Even if I could never experience what some of these people have, I feel like such thought experiments and questions get me a little closer, and are useful in trying to bridge that sort of divide between groups who may have less of an understanding with the other than they believe.

That said, it was painful to watch how the automatic mechanisms that came into play– anger and self defense of one’s identity–only intensified the feelings of helplessness that probably first spurred both the anger of the father and the anger of the black community in the first place. The helpless anger of a father losing a son, and the helpless anger of an ostracized community being labeled against their dignities.

It was personally revealing to me that no one in the film ever paused to ask “Why did you put up that sign?”, and “Why are you angry about the sign”. Perhaps the answers were obvious, but perhaps they weren’t. Sometimes, we take for granted answers that aren’t there, or may even have the right idea but aren’t specific enough to really get at the core of the issues. Perhaps even when they were obvious we need to be reminded of that, as a way to get the ball rolling. In any case, it seemed like the parties involved were only interested in getting what they wanted and needed without ever thinking about what the other side wanted and needed. Did it help either side get closer to the catharsis they so desired? To get at the heart of each other’s grievances? Do things really have to be that zero sum? Perhaps it would have been better if anger in self defence were replaced by a humble accepting of each sides offenses and hurts, and then an attempt to understand why the other side was behaving the way it was. Of course, it is much harder to put down your emotions than I might have made it out to be, and just because you can put them down to think, does not mean it is any easy, or maybe even justified for one to let them go. In any case, in the end the adoption of anger as the primary response only seemed to escalate their inability to do anything to resolve the heart of their own grievances, till it was settled by a third party through the symbol of force in the white cop (though portrayed as having sympathies) and his gun. Of course the ending would feel empty. The adoption of anger pushed people away from understanding, and disempowered everyone but the third party. Things were not resolved, only further suppressed and postponed.

Which then leads to the purpose of the film. Some people have commented that neither the sign at the start of the film nor the film itself as a whole was very productive because it only seemed to offer agitation and not resolution, but I think maybe that was the intention of the film. I feel like the film didn’t try to offer any solutions or make things more fair because at the heart of it when these things happen in real life, few people do find solutions that work. If they had, perhaps the kinds of raw feelings and issues this film raises wouldn’t be an issue. The empty unfulfilled feeling you get is the question of “what now?”, and I feel like the film gives us the option of answering for ourselves, because it itself doesn’t know the answer. Rather than try to preach to us, this film wanted to have a dialogue with us, to provoke not the anger it illustrated, but the question of that anger. And, I feel like is exactly what we’re doing right now.

Sorry if that was too long.

Posted 05 Nov 2009 at 3:01 pm ¶
Lei wrote:

And also, perhaps we focus too much on expressing our pain and getting other people to notice and recognize it, and not enough on helping each other get passed it? Though certainly I think, the former is a necessary part of the latter.

Posted 05 Nov 2009 at 3:06 pm ¶
brownstocking wrote:

Oooh, I wanna see Abarenbo Asian’s movie! That I could get behind, I love sploitation flicks, and there, yes, you know what you’re getting! I could get behind the obvious scapegoating and stereotypes–sploitation shorthand. Don’t forget the white drugged out lesbian pimp and the sellout/infiltrating Asian woman who’s gotta die horribly trying to make up for her race betrayal. Let’s put it all in there!

We could push a great retro/subversive film culture forward into the mainstream, too!

Posted 05 Nov 2009 at 3:17 pm ¶
9jah wrote:

I am sure behind this was an attempt to examine the misunderstandings that lead to asian and black conflicts in certain communities. Truth is to me this wasn’t compelling at all. Rather it invoked such massive stereotyping it was very cartoonish and unrealistic as others have mentioned.

A few fun and routine stereotypes (it also pushed the notion of meek vulnerable Asians but I’ll just touch on how blacks are presented):

scowl-faced black men – check
violent black men – check
mysterious, intimidating black man(in store) – check
everyone but black people emoting – check
non-back story black people – check
tiresome “no snitch” meme – check
overcharged, misplaced priorities black crowd (urging police to shoot) – check

…and so on and so forth

Posted 05 Nov 2009 at 4:55 pm ¶
Lei wrote:

to 9jah:

That might be choosing to see what you want to though. The black person in the store at least to me seemed to exhibiting shame more than anything. He gave a slight gesture, head slightly ducked, and quickly walked away. At least the father in the black crowd looked a little confused as to what to do, particularly when his kid started calling for him. And I certainly don’t think the one trying to “talk to him” first was portrayed as violent, nor the first guy who tried to be nice about it.

Posted 05 Nov 2009 at 6:05 pm ¶
BSK wrote:

9jah-

What about the fact that the lone black man urging calm was also the A) 0pdest of the group and B) least threateningly dressed? No possibility for a young, urban black man to be the voice of reason?

Posted 05 Nov 2009 at 9:30 pm ¶
Tonya wrote:

My computer pulled some stupid shit on me last night, so I’m not sure if my comment went through, so I apologize in advance if I’m repeating myself.

I was very moved by this piece. I don’t think my race and gender (a black female) affected my perception of this film. All my empathy/sympathy went to the father, Daniel. His son was shot and no one spoke out even though it was broad daylight. I saw a frustrated father trying to get the attention of the community the best way he knew how.

I found the representations in the film interesting. The angry black crowd, who all knew that this man’s son had just been shot and killed in broad daylight and no one spoke up. There were only two voices of reason, the older black man and a younger female who alluded to people seeing what happened to his son and not saying anything.

On the other hand, people may not be speaking out about who shot his son due to fear of retaliation from the killers, as they probably live in the same neighbourhood.

Also, I found it interesting that the store owner seemed intimidated by the young black man who stopped to look at them when they were discussing putting the poster up in the store. I also was confused as to why he chose not to put it up.

I saw some questions as to whether he would have been shot if he was a black man weilding a bat. I will venture out and say the result would be the same because if I’m not mistaken it was the SAME police officer that has told him his son was dead and there were no clues/witnesses. Maybe the officer didn’t shoot cause he felt sorry for the man.

Tears actually came to my eyes when he laid in the chalk outline of his son’s body though.

I was confused as to what he was being arrested for. Weilding a bat at a crowd of people? Or the sign?

Overall, I thought it was an amazing, moving piece that I’m sure will keep people thinking.

Posted 06 Nov 2009 at 1:34 pm ¶
9jah wrote:

@ Lei – I don’t know if I’m “choosing” what I want to see but that is what it appeared to me at first sight. I looked at it again and it’s anyone’s guess what the filmmaker was trying to convey. The guy gives what could be interpreted as a “you people got what you deserved” nod – or you could be right that its shame. I don’t know.

@ Lei/BSK – the film maker meant well, I know and they were a number of positive black people in the film. I’m not disregarding this – I’m just saying for a film that is using irony to challenge our casual assumptions regarding race/stereotyping, I can’t get past the idea that it recycles some of the most basic stereotypes about black men/people in media. Most of the men who we hear curse. When the woman suggests that someone saw something, the guys are inarticulate and mute. One person goes to a violent extreme. I appreciate the inspiration and message, its just this particular effort left me kinda like blah.

Posted 06 Nov 2009 at 9:08 pm ¶
Jha wrote:

I was sad.

I don’t know if I was really that affected by race – being from Malaysia, I didn’t really grow up with the racial dynamics that run so intensely here. We do have similar dynamics, though.

I was really taken aback at first, seeing the sign, but as the film progressed, it made more sense. But after that, it just got to the whole “why is this happening?” When the black guy in the store didn’t say anything, why not? When the store owner didn’t want to do anything, why not?

I really appreciated that there was a range of voices – but pissed when the [only] black woman was ignored. And I got even sadder when the kid in the distance started crying for his dad, which made Daniel break down and run to the chalkmark, and I just didn’t know how to process it anymore.

I don’t know if this film factors into how we have conversations with each other, as it does illustrate how we do a lot of talking past and above each other.

Let me think about it some more.

Posted 06 Nov 2009 at 10:51 pm ¶
T-Boy wrote:

Just so you know, I’m South-East Asian (ethnically Malay), not American, Muslim and a guy.

I actually was remarkably angry by the end of this movie. I had incredible amounts of sympathy for the father — after all, what father could bear the thought, much less the reality of loss of their children?

But I’ll cop to this — when I first saw the sign, my blood ran cold. By the end of it, though, what I saw was a community not caring enough that a parent lost their child, but cared enough that some alien troublemaker was insulting them and calling them out — which is resonates incredibly with me, because where I come from, the community I belong to cannot countenance the idea of being insulted, justice or human decency be damned.

That “face” trumped justice — that was what hit me the hardest, now that I think of it.

And there was a part of me that wanted, wanted so badly, to have the Asian father walk into the cop’s gun, and I suspect it had something to do with my ethnicity as well, because it reminded me of amuk.

To me, the man’s actions were essentially what we call mengamuk, because his life had become so unbearable for continued existence, he could not bear to end his own life, and he wanted to condemn the community around him that condoned such a thing.

“Look at me,” he seems to say, “You kill my son, it is okay, you say nothing. But I insult you, I slash at your belly, and you want to kill me! So kill me! Kill the troublemaker! Let my blood spill on the ground and be a mark against you!”

…

That’s how I felt initially, anyway. Then Sean’s #7 comment jolted me and made me realize — this shit? It happens to black families too.

Posted 06 Nov 2009 at 11:43 pm ¶
K-roc wrote:

My first reaction in the film was how the story of the ex-con father and the innocent young son (in absentia of the sign and the standoff) parallel those of similar films about black families. The addition of race is visual and obvious, but it seemed to also emphasize that a lot of the issue is cultural (well, of course! “How we treat each other”). Maybe the father sees the similarities of the stories and feels betrayed and angry by the people he thought were his friends, people who he felt he shared a bond with but who he thinks have abandoned him in favor of racial solidarity. So he does the most incindiary thing he can think of, the thing that will make people as angry as he is.

The beginning made me flash to too many vigilante action films, so I got slightly distracted checking out the father. My brain has been trained by Hollywood to automatically accept vigilantisme as not only appropriate but attractive, at least if its on screen. As it moved into the flesh of the story and the second part, my brain moved onto conflicted horror.

The father is obviously in the wrong for the sign, and the mob is well within their rights to be upset about something that is meant as a slur and a question. I felt that it was more poignant that they had the “good blacks” (as one commenter put it) ask him to take the sign down, and for him to refuse, because I think it was directed at them as well. The shopkeeper is the little asian who doesn’t make waves, and the woman is THE VOICE OF REASON (who is promptly ignored). And it is directed at them too, at the community who wouldn’t share information but more importantly whose silence he felt was implicitly valuing “young black gangstas” over his own son. Maybe he felt that if his son was also one of those thugs, someone might have spoken out. I’m from Canada, and I don’t know the rules and regulations of the ‘hood. But those seemed to be the strands of narrative that were floating around.

I will say I did automatically have more sympathy for the asian characters, and a squeezing of the gut in sympathy for the conflicted “good” black characters (and the kid! oh the kid!). In the name of good vs. evil, I wanted someone to speak out on Daniel’s behalf. I was still sympathetic to the “bad” blacks for being angry, although much less so. And I thought the white cop was a douche, and I wondered why he didn’t have a taser and just use that. Gun vs. Bat looks really silly to my non-violent liberal sensibilities. If people are getting shot for holding bats, even threateningly (and I see from above comments maybe they are) then the world at large has some serious issues.

I do think a lot of my gut reactions were associated with: my whiteness, my class standing, and my canadianness. I was not surprised to automatically have more sympathy for the asian character, and if the situation were reversed (black dad + son, asian neighborhood) I would still be sympathetic but I’m not sure if it would be AS sympathetic. And that might be one of the fundamental issues with this film – it is very short, it did have to sacrifice cultural and racial nuances in favor of the storyline and it was designed to incite feeling. As such it is very black and white (green and red?) and almost deliberately blind, so that each character has a role as good or bad or vigilante. It did make my stomach churn, and I was completely dissatisfied with the ending although I think it was the most appropriate.

Posted 07 Nov 2009 at 10:47 am ¶
Rob wrote:

At around the 9:00 mark of the second video I thought that I saw Daniel embracing a black kid dying on the ground and that made me think: What if the ending had a twist and the father was actually black and the perpetrators were Asian thugs in a predominately Asian American neighborhood? I know the sign would have to be slightly altered but it really made me think.

Posted 07 Nov 2009 at 11:04 am ¶
Nishani wrote:

I have no comments to add because in part many of you have already said what I would have said. All I want now is to point out that this is the most intelligent, interesting, engaging conversation I have seen in a long time on issues of race, GENDER, class, the criminal justice system, imagery, symbolism, story telling style, technical film-making, —- you name it. In particular, I have found the level of internal assessment and analysis to be particularly interesting for many of the comments (some were disappointing when claiming that somehow their experience did NOT play into their perspective. For those folks, I say as brownstocking would — SHULLBIT!

I will only add that I really appreciated the comments from Sean, Helen, Karen, Keith, Kyle, K, Cindy, and T-Boy.

Posted 07 Nov 2009 at 6:43 pm ¶
DivergentDana wrote:

we’ll start a riot over the use of the n-word, but remain silent when a boy is shot outside his own home in broad daylight?

Um, someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think a riot has ever started over the n-word. Usually, riots — which I think are counterproductive — start when a boy or man IS shot.

Posted 08 Nov 2009 at 12:26 am ¶
DivergentDana wrote:

“I am the single mother of a 12 year old boy, and I am well aware of the danger that could confront him…..this type of situation is my worst nightmare, and I don’t know how I would react if I knew folks had info but refused to share cause of that “no snitching” crap.”

Not that I condone it, but it could possibly be the informed reaction of communities and populations that in reality are wracked with fear — fear of the criminals and fear of the cops… in a neighborhood where there’s a long-standing enmity between the community and the police, who’s going to believe that when push comes to shove, criminals will be prosecuted quickly and witnesses will be protected adequately, especially if they didn’t witness the crime during choir practice? That’s the ultimate display/test of trust, and many don’t feel that it’s been earned. Young black men in particular aren’t encouraged to openly express fear, so instead, some may repackage themselves as renegades (and the “non-snitching” behavior as intentionally subversive as opposed to shrewdly self-preservationist) — a more socially acceptable display of masculinity, in the eyes of both mainstream and black culture.

Posted 08 Nov 2009 at 12:53 am ¶
b wrote:

wow…i just, wow. i’m sorry i don’t have paragraphs of thoughtful response but this hit me in such a way that… i can’t process what i’m feeling right now. i am a black female but i definitely see all points of view on this story and think this is one of the best portrayals of a tragedy that i have ever seen. yeah, i think that’s the word i’m going to go with: tragic. it’s like seeing trains coming from all sides of a 4-way track to the middle, but each thinks it has the right of way, you feel powerless to stop it, and who do you try to tell to turn away first. the mess is ultimately everyone’s.

Posted 08 Nov 2009 at 12:58 am ¶
RCHOUDH wrote:

This was a very touching story. I like how it illustrated that just because a neighborhood is mixed doesn’t mean people know or get along with each other closely. I’ve lived in neighborhoods like that in NYC and it’s pretty common to see everyone minding their own business and ignoring each other, especially if they’re of different backgrounds.

My take on why the father used the inflammatory N word is because of extreme grief and isolation within his community. Usually when a person doesn’t have any close relationships with people of other backgrounds, any sort of bad experience they had with a member of another ethnic/racial group, they’ll wind up stereotyping and using incendiary language. That’s what I got out of watching this film, the effects that living like an outsider within your own community. It was never shown how this isolation came about (was the father intentionally isolating himself from his neighbors who were predominantly black? Were the neighbors always indifferent to him and his son?

Posted 08 Nov 2009 at 12:16 pm ¶
Rudy wrote:

I think this film highlights a good example of how ‘conquer and divide’ operates in our society. Living in the US, we know that there are systems and structures that privilege some over others. More clearly stated, we know that the system and structure the US operates out to privileges a small amount of people and the majority of the people in this country get the short end of the stick.

Since the majority of people get the short end of the stick, conquer and divided is a tool that is used to keep the proletariat fighting against each other (interracial tension and violence). What this does is prevents Latina/os, black, Asian, and other minoritized populations in this country from mobilizing and coming together and challenging the world we live in.

This film is a good example (in my opinion) of how interracial tension is something that benefits the few that are in privileged positions. We have to remember, race was something constructed to categorize and label non0whites as “others.” The construction of race was something to benefit those in power and privilege positions and what has come out of this is interracial tension, black and white binaries, and fighting and conflict amongst non-white racial groups.

At the same time, this film reminds me of how (as a Latino male) we need to challenge ourselves and our own racism and perpetuation of stereotypes, racism, and discrimination. Sometimes, we can be very racist and counterproductive as we strive for racial equity in this world.

Posted 08 Nov 2009 at 9:17 pm ¶
JB wrote:

Movies rarely portray reality, its so easy to portray blk males in a negative light when really what other group in this country has suffered the prolonged mistreatment and slavery and murders that black people have and yet here we go with another bit of fantasy portraying the black community as the souless monsters…as mentioned more blk males are dead from this situation than asian males, but lets ignore that for the sake of “artisically” using a hateful word that no one of any other race will ever understand because it stands for centuries of deprivations on an ethnicity of people…because they dont want to, the use of that word is a convienient vertbal and written tool to degrade black people whether its some ignorant black rapper calling someone that term or a person of non-black ethnicity…that word was there when slaves were tortured and murdered, that word was there when black towns in oklahoma and florida were destroyed by mobs of whites angry that black people were prospering with their freedom, and that word exists today still as ugly and offensive as ever no matter how it is used.

I find the film cowardly, in light of the fact that the racial hieracrchy in the US puts black people (in particular black males) at the lowest rung so its “safe” to make a movie attacking the worst aspects of black culture as a back drop for sympathy for the “stranger in a strange land”

There is plenty of asian on asian crime on the west coast, but that would be to harsh a self evaluation for the author of this film to examine perhaps? Much easier craft a tale of pity with the dastardly blacks as the culprits.

We are international outcasts, we have no home continent or countries to return to they are over run with neocolonialism, no matter what I acheive (owning a business) the non-black people of this nation will always assume on features, assume I am less educated, assume I am violent, assume I am some sort of threat when over the last 500 years of so Im pretty certain black americans have been responsible for the fewest deaths of non-black people worldwide, but everyone including a lot of blacks seems to swallow this story that violence is somehow related to race instead of socio-economic circumstances. The French revolution didnt occur because a boatload of Hatians traversed the atlantic and started a riot, but I have the feeling that a lot of people would believe that if they were told it was so because its such a safe comfy stereotype.

So in summary, yes life is hard in poor communities there is more crime in the ghetto locales of the world whether its south central or Belfast…thats nothing new, in fact people don’t snitch in North Ireland either out of fear of retribution. However I doubt a film featuring an asian character living abroad in Ireland and putting up a banner saying the same thing with some irish ethnic slur would have been as well received, So really I dont find this movie anymore ground-breaking than any of the slew of “gangsta” movies of the 1990s like Menace II Society or Jason’s Lyric or Boyz in the Hood save that the focus of outrage and anger is an asian man instead of a black one who has lost a loved one.

But somehow its more “special” that its a non-black who suffers the loss because of course blacks aren’t worthy of sympathy. Its times like this that I wonder if Im doing the wrong thing teaching my fledgling boy that you judge people on character not on appearance when apparently no one else bothers to do so…I feel like Im setting him up for a life of exploitation and depression when he finds that others wont give him the same courtesy.

Posted 09 Nov 2009 at 4:07 am ¶
shampton wrote:

I lived in South central, about two blocks off Crenshaw, for about a year. Sometimes I was the only anglo in the drivethru, you know? The film captures the way the race dynamic lay on top of festering rage, frustration, and powerlessness – creating a multigenerational feedback system that only amplifies violence and despair. And in the end, everybody ends up losing control. Been there, seen that, got swept up in the madness myself.

Posted 09 Nov 2009 at 12:00 pm ¶
A. wrote:

As a black woman, the way I felt about this film initially is that we, as black people, need to seriously get over ourselves sometimes. This behavior is certainly not uncommon in other racial groups as well, but even having grown up in majority black areas, this was EXACTLY how many of the black men that I dealt with behaved. I feel the same kind of mindnumbing rage that I felt from seeing the Derrion Albert Video. Too many of us are so quick to unite when someone uses the N-bomb – and to unite to kick their asses – but too many of us are not willing to unite and speak up when ANOTHER HUMAN BEING is killed. We only truly unite when someone uses the n-bomb, and that’s a sad situation to be.

The next thought was that this is just how divide and conquer works.

Posted 09 Nov 2009 at 4:49 pm ¶
Emmeaki wrote:

As a black woman, I see this film as realistic. I have seen black people who would damn near kill a person (or maybe even literally kill a person) who called them the N word, but would think nothing of using racial slurs against Asians.

I’ve seen black people be totally rude and disrespectful to the Chinese people working in take-out restaurants in Brooklyn. I’ve even seen them disrespect a young girl working behind the counter, who looked no older than 14. I once heard a grown black woman, who looked to be in her 30’s told one worker “I don’t speak Hong Kong.” when she had trouble understanding the lady’s accent.

As far as the movie is concerned, on one hand, I don’t like the use of the N word by the father, but because of his grief, it’s understandable.

I’m angry that people looked the other way and wouldn’t help identify the murderers, but at the same time, if someone would have snitched, then they would have probably ended up being the next one shot. Even the store owner probably would have been harassed if he had put the flyer up in his window, so I’m torn on that one.

I was also angry at the cop who arrested Daniel when he was obviously outnumbered by the mob surrounding his house. That’s a whole different issue in itself.

Posted 09 Nov 2009 at 5:19 pm ¶
misterchane wrote:

1) I am an African American male and all during the film, I was struck by the alternate reality this short film had to have taken place in.

I understood the story (wracked by guilt, pain and a seemingly uncaring community of “others”, the bat wielding, inflammatory sign posting father wanted an explanation/confession/violent confrontation from “others”), but was put off by the way the filmmakers went about it.

*The Positive Aspects*

The standout Af Am characters (father and daughter, the older gentleman and the young woman) were made to seem normal

I thought the lack of accent and F.O.B. cliche was a good touch

The mention of a past state vacation by the father was interesting

The frustration at the limited scope of the police in a murder investigation seemed true

*The Negative*

The rest of the AfAm characters were either a hair trigger mob, illogical gangsters or some Marlo Stansfield silent intimidation clones

The kid was obviously tangled up in an illegal activity (which could have been the reason for neighborhood reluctance to snitch)

Police in a neighborhood of color especially, ride two to a car and are not at all shy about calling for a small armada of back up when there are more than a couple of melanin rich males in close proximity to one another, never mind loud and gesticulating wildly

The word “nigger” was stupid to use

Posted 09 Nov 2009 at 9:25 pm ¶
Emmeaki wrote:

#87 Misterchane wrote:

I thought the lack of accent and F.O.B. cliche was a good touch

I couldn’t agree more!!!

Posted 09 Nov 2009 at 11:15 pm ¶
Kat wrote:

I just don’t buy the logic of this short film. The answer to the question in the film would be YES.. a boy of ANY race would be shot as well especially if he is INVOLVED in illegal activity, for pete’s sake.

I don’t see how putting a racial slur sign up has anything to do with what happened to the asian boy. Wasn’t he involved in illegal activity?

This story can replicated in any impoverished minority neighborhood with a minority parent whose son was killed.

Things that I learned from this film… and from the commenters as well.

1) black people have a hive mind…

2) black people have no individuality…

3)everything one black person does is a reflection of all black people…

4) 2 or more dark skin black males is a mob…

5) snitching has nothing to do with fear of being killed but instead for so called “racial solidarity”…

6) If you’re angry… just call people a racial slur to make yourself feel better and expect empathy…

7) according to commenter # 21…black people should be rounded up and beaten to confess starting with the little boy….

8 ) Socioeconomic conditions of the neighborhood can’t play any role in this film…

9)The boy’s personal involvement in illegal activity doesn’t have any effect in why there is lack of information…

10) Other than try to put one sign up, no alternatives are made by the father to get other people to help in the neighborhood.

11) In case of last resort to get information, wield a bat in people’s face and expect sympathy from the community.

What is the point of the sign again? according to some of the posters on here, I guess the next time, I am fed up, I will call someone racial/ethnic slur, wave a bat around, expect someone to sympathize with my rude behavior.
and hope the cop doesn’t charge me with disorderly conduct.

Posted 09 Nov 2009 at 11:25 pm ¶