watching ROSEWOOD for the first time since i was a kid. two thoughts: 1) i saw this movie way too young the first time. 2) john singleton is doing some really interesting things with this film besides just depicting a horrific event of violence.
it is interesting, for one, that this movie comes out as world war ii remembrance has reached a peak, with lots of stuff depicting white americans as heroic on a world historical level.
it is interesting, in the same way, that this movie comes out 10 months before AMISTAD
basically, this is a movie that has to be read in the context of the overall culture of the 1990s, including the prominence of the trope of the dysfunctional black family and a very mainstream discourse of black pathology
from the start, this film is commenting on and inverting those things in a way that isn’t at all subtle once you are keyed into it
i’ll end this thread for now and pick it up tomorrow, when we finish the movie.
one of the things this movie does, and does well, is show how the right and ability to inflict violence on blacks was constitutive of white male identity. and how the democratic exercise of racial violence by whites bound the community together.
there is even a nod here to du bois’ idea of the “psychological wage,” with the white owner of the mill/farm giving his white workers the day off to search for the alleged black fugitive.
another related theme, pretty much illustrated outright with a stand off between two groups of white men, is the tension between the state’s monopoly on the use of force and the democratization of the right to inflict racial violence among white men
in the scene, a sheriff and posse from a neighboring town stands off against a white mob and tells them to go no further, they aren’t welcome. one of the men of the mob yells “this is no way to treat a white man”
the extent to which this movie is aimed directly at deconstruction white racial violence and male identity makes me even more convinced that you gotta “read” this in the context of 1990s world war ii remembrance.
absolutely wild that this (great) movie was made and also no shock at all that it was a huge flop
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
bad theology aside its worth saying that he can’t even get his labels right. “eschatology” relates to religious doctrines concerning the final fate of humanity. what erickson is trying to discuss is “soteriology,” the term for doctrines of salvation
probably worth saying, as well, that in the dispensationalist eschatology of American conservative evangelical christianity, God whisks away the saved/elect and subjects the rest of humanity to seven years of escalating horror culminating in near total annihilation.
there is no real way to extricate this fantasy of the armed white property owner standing off against thieving hordes from either america’s settler history or from the deep-seated and pervasive antebellum fear of slave revolt
it is arguably one of the ur-american fantasies, something recapitulated again and again in our media and pop culture
right. “if a legislature passes a bill and the governor vetoes it can still become law if it passes by majority vote in a statewide referendum” makes democratic sense, even if i’m not thrilled about it.
when you consider too that michigan republicans have gerrymandered themselves into a majority that can with stand consecutive popular vote defeats, it sure sounds like this is just outright minority rule
“The Senate is structurally biased against the party with a large urban constituency therefore we should use our fleeting majorities to pass as much legislation as we can and the filibuster inhibits this” isn’t that difficult to understand.
Also, there is the little thing of how the Republican Party is radicalizing against majoritarian democracy and the only way to shore up the right to vote is with federal legislation that, hey, the filibuster makes impossible to pass.
Many people have written easily available and detailed arguments against the filibuster in its current form and it is probably worth reading them before pontificating on what filibuster opponents think.