To get this movie, you have to read between the lines

Rating: 10/10 (25 June 2008)

On the surface, American History X is a preachy movie that tells us racism is bad. But the details of the movie undercut the preachiness and show that life is a bit more complicated than that.
We see why the white kids become racist against non-whites. First, their police officer Dad gets passed over for promotion in his job because he is white, and non-whites are favored over whites under the department's affirmative action policy.
Next, the beach town where they live is becoming integrated, and some white kids are beaten up by non-white kids. To defend themselves, they form a gang to counter the gangs of blacks and Latinos that have moved into their traditionally white neighborhood and schools.
Next, Derek, the neo-Nazi leader, complains about the fact that new non-white immigrants (both legal and illegal) are coming into their town, taking jobs away from unskilled whites, not assimilating into American culture, and getting government benefits not available to whites.
Last, there is racism directed at whites by some of the non-whites.
The question this movie poses is an important one: Can we be honest about the fact that what I have just talked about is going on (too many in our society deny all these things, or pretend they are not important), but still look at people as individuals and not pre-judge them on the basis of race?
Derek, the neo-Nazi leader, eventually meets a black inmate in prison who wins Derek over with his sense of humor. It turns out that the black is protecting Derek from other blacks and Latinos after Derek loses the protection of his neo-Nazi buddies because of a dispute between them.
Where the movie fails in my view (and of course, this view will be seen by many as politically incorrect) is in its transformation of Derek into someone who is now against racism simply because he made a black friend and may owe his life to that friend.
There is no good reason to believe that Derek's new-found ability to not pre-judge a person on the basis of that person's race means that he still doesn't believe that non-whites in general are being unfairly favored over whites in our society.
I myself object to the entire social discourse on race in our society today. It would be one thing if we had truly moved beyond judging people "by the color of their skin instead of the content of their character," but our "enlightened" society today never forgets the color of people's skin.
The difference between now and the time when Dr. King spoke is that today our society rewards people for being a certain race at the expense of people of another race. And so we never move beyond race to looking at people as individuals and rewarding them based on their character and efforts.
Many argue that we need to go through this period of racial favoritism in order to level a playing field that favored whites in the past, and still favors many whites today. Perhaps. But those who make this argument must be prepared for the consequences that result when people lose out on opportunities they would otherwise enjoy.
The Dereks of this world are not a figment of some screen-writer's imagination. And they did not create the problem that society now asks them to solve by putting their dreams on hold. I would be more inclined to support this leveling of the playing field if everyone shared in the burden. For example, the white leaders and politicians who support racial favoritism. Why do they never step aside and offer their own jobs, positions and money to non-whites? It is ironic that, in a supposed attempt to create social justice, only middle class and poor whites are expected to make the necessary sacrifices.
Perhaps the makers of American History X were inclined -- somewhat -- to agree with me because the movie ends with the brutal and apparently unprovoked murder of Derek's white brother by a black.
The movie thus subverts its own message that everything will be just hunky-dory if the neo-Nazis just forget about their grievances over race and -- indeed -- recognize that there was no foundation for those grievances in the first place.
Could this ambiguity in the movie have something to do with the disagreement between the star and the director? That is the question the movie left me with.
Anyway, it is a superb movie in terms of acting, cinematography, and so on, and is well worth watching.