MovieChat Forums > White Man's Burden (1995) Discussion > Subtly racist?

Subtly racist?

posted 16 years ago by happyhealey
4 replies | jump to latest

I'll be quick:

In WHITE MAN'S BURDEN, Desmond Nakano depicts so-called "white" people as largely ignorant and somewhat animalistic, earthy characters. Conversely, the "black" population seems, as a whole, affluent and productive. Taking for granted that this movie is meant to be a reversal of traditional class structures, does this film make the overly reductive assertion that black people are all poor and uneducated?

Is this racist?

Does the film offer any significant counterpoint to this conclusion?

If not, is this offense justified by the presumed agenda of the film (to help US white people understand what it is like to be subordinate)?

Discuss.

[–] Greetingsfromtromabill 16 years ago

It is more accurate than anything else.

I hate everyone and everything.

[–] nina_nicky 14 years ago

To me, it seemed more like the film shows how living in ghettos and being faced with limited and society-induced options of survival will make most people behave ignorantly and animalistically, whereas the wealth, security and a wide range of academic options that you can find in middle and upper class society will make people affluent and productive.

Basically, by reversing the races and yet keeping those specific social group characteristics the same, the movie shows how those traits are indeed not related to race, but to social status and environment. So, it's not racist. It actually points out that racist theories linking violent tendencies in humans to their race are wrong.

[–] www.wedd 14 years ago

I admit flat-out that I've never seen the film, so I don't know how the story actually plays out, but, on paper, at least, the premise of this film makes me crack up laughing. It just seems like a satire of ignorant Hollywood executives sitting around going "You know what would be really thought-provoking and awards-worthy? What if the blacks were on top?" Some exec probably came up with it while experiencing minor pangs of guilt while having his shoes shined one day.
It's worthy of The Comic Strip Presents...Strike! On paper, at least.

[–] activista 14 years ago

@www

No, the film was made by an independent writer-director---it's not a Hollywood creature at all---it could have delved deeper into the implications of such a reverse situation, like another poster said, and it could have been better, but maybe the low budget and lack of time prevented the director form going further with it than he could have---it's worth looking at just for the premise alone,though.