The Wall Is Dead

I have been wanting a wall built along the Mexican border for twenty years.  I never really had much hope for it.  Now I have none at all.

There are basically two arguments against building that wall:  the first is that it won’t work; the second is that it will.  And I have even heard some people advance both reasons without any sense of inconsistency.  One minute we hear that people will just use ladders to get over the wall, and the next minute we hear that it is cruel and inhumane to keep people out.

My view is that a wall, properly manned and monitored, would work, and that while I feel sorry for the people trying to get into this country, I still don’t want to let them in for the same reason that I don’t want a homeless person sleeping on my couch.  I am just not that good.

I am willing to concede that I may be mistaken as to the effectiveness of a wall in stopping illegal immigration.  And if someone wants to accuse me of being selfish and heartless for wanting a wall, I will concede that point as well.  The question that concerns me at the moment is not whether my desire to have a wall built along the southern border proves either that I am a fool or a knave, possibly both, but whether it proves that I am a racist.

It’s all Donald Trump’s fault, of course.  In the commentary of late about Donald Trump’s racism, several examples are typically put forward as evidence.  First, there was his remark that most of the people coming here from Mexico are rapists, drug dealers, and assorted criminals.  Second, there is his advocacy of a ban on Muslims.  Third, there is his claim that the judge presiding over his case is prejudiced against him on account of his Mexican heritage.

One might quibble over whether these things are racism or some other kind of prejudice.  For example, the ban on Muslims I would call religious discrimination, because Muslims do not constitute a race.  On the other hand, since it is now fashionable to say that race is just a social construct, I suppose we could socially construct Muslims as a race if we wanted to.  For that matter, we might even simplify things by socially constructing the race of illegal immigrants, regardless of their national origin, skin color, or physiognomy.  People sneaking into this country from Mexico, Syria, Thailand, and Nigeria would all be of the same race, the race of illegal immigrants.  Then, anyone opposing illegal immigration would be a racist.  But we all know that race is more than just a social construct, and that socially constructing a race of illegal immigrants as outlined above would be just plain silly.

Therefore, I do not wish to quibble about whether Trump’s remarks are racist or just some other kind of prejudice or discrimination.  Let us, for the sake of simplicity, stipulate that Trump’s remarks are racist and that Donald Trump says these things because he is a racist.  What bothers me is that in addition to the examples mentioned above as proof of Trump’s racism, his desire to build a wall is listed right along with them.  Now, it is one thing to say that Donald Trump wants to build a wall because he is a racist.  It is quite another thing to say that someone is a racist because he wants to build a wall.  Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain have all supported the idea of building a wall at one time or another.  Are they racists?  Or rather, were they racists at the time but no longer?

Whatever their reasons were for a change of heart, or at least a change of position, I can guarantee they will never be in support of a wall again.  There probably never was much chance for a wall before Trump declared his desire to become president.  Now there is no chance at all.  The idea of a wall will forever have the Donald Trump taint, and no future politician with aspirations to become president will want to have anything to do with it.

The Mask of Fu Manchu (1932)

Watching The Mask of Fu Manchu today, one is very likely to wonder if this movie was the inspiration for Raiders of the Lost Ark.  Both movies are set in roughly the same time period, the 1930s.  In the latter, there is an American archaeologist who is searching for an ancient artifact (the Ark of the Covenant); in the former, there is a group of British archaeologists who embark on such a quest (looking for the mask and sword of Genghis Khan).  In the latter, the Nazis are also in search of the Ark, which has (supernatural) powers they believe will be useful to them in the coming war; in the former, an evil Chinese leader, Fu Manchu (Boris Karloff), is in search of the sword and mask for the (psychological) power he believes they will bring him in his ability to inspire hordes of Chinese soldiers by causing them to think he is the reincarnation of Genghis Khan.  The mask and sword are buried in the tomb of Genghis Khan, somewhere in the Gobi desert, where the team of archaeologists must get to before Fu Manchu discovers where it is.  Once they arrive, they are eventually captured, but eventually manage to overpower their captors, kill Fu Manchu and wipe out his followers.  And just as in Raiders of the Lost Ark, where the Ark is deliberately lost again by burying it deep in a warehouse, so too is the sword of Genghis Khan buried again, this time at sea.

One major difference between the two movies is the unabashed racism in The Mask of Fu Manchu.  We are used to seeing racism in older movies, but there are different kinds of racism, and this movie is a good illustration of that.  One way of distinguishing racism is by the type of racial differences assumed to exist, of which there are three:  the physical, the mental, and the moral.

African Americans, who belong to the “black race,” are typically assumed to be physically superior to all the others.  In Donald Bogle’s Toms, Coons, Mulattoes, Mammies and Bucks:  An Interpretive History of Blacks in Films, he distinguished different kinds of black stereotypes, the ones referred to in the title.  The “buck” is hypersexual and usually has a powerful physique.  In Gone With the Wind, for example, there is no question about who the strongest man in the movie is, and that is Big Sam, Scarlett’s former slave, who rescues her when she is attacked.

Other than that, Caucasians, who belong to the “white race,” are presumed by most racists to be superior in the other two categories, the mental and the moral, at least with respect the black race.  Native Americans, who belong to the “red race,” are depicted in old movies (movies made before World War II) as being equal to the white race physically and mentally, but morally inferior on account of their being thought of as savages.

The unusual thing about Asians, who belong to the “yellow race,” is that there seems to be an unmentioned fear that they actually have the edge on the white race as far as intelligence is concerned.  When Fu Manchu mentions that he is a doctor of philosophy, of law, and of medicine, each from a different British or American university, he brings to mind that sinister remark often uttered by Asians in the old movies, “I was educated in your country.”  At the end of the movie, he and his followers are destroyed by a machine capable of delivering a continuous stream of a million volts of electricity when the archaeologists get their hands on it.  As this marvelous machine was invented by the Chinese, that is further implicit evidence of their superior intelligence.

Like the red and black races, the yellow race was often depicted as being morally inferior, as is the case in this movie.  But whereas the red race had the excuse of being primitives, as did the black race when encountered in Africa, the immoral nature of the yellow race exists despite their advantages in civilization and education.  This makes them seem especially evil.  And this movie plays that up in a big way, for we witness many scenes of highly imaginative torture.

One aspect of the immoral nature of the so-called inferior races is sexual.  Fah Lo See (Myrna Loy) is the daughter of Fu Manchu, whom the latter offers as a sexual bribe to the kidnapped British archaeologist to get him to tell where the mask and sword are, and she seems most willing to be the sexual reward for his willingness to talk.  In fact, she is portrayed as a woman who is aroused by witnessing torture and likes to have sex with a man just before he is put to death.

As for the men, there is a famous line where Fu Manchu, just before he offers up the sacrifice of a virgin white woman to the gods, as preparation for conquering the world, asks his minions if they would like to have white maidens like her for their wives.  When they cheer in affirmation, he says, “Then conquer and breed.  Kill the white men and take his women.”

Finally, there is the complete contempt for human life attributed to the yellow race in this movie.  Fu Manchu has what appears to be several black slaves, all of whom would fit into the “buck” category:  big, muscular men who mostly stand around with their arms folded.  In one scene, where Fu Manchu prepares a serum from a variety of venomous creatures, he pulls a poisonous snake out of a cask.  We expect him to milk the poison out of the snake by squeezing its glands, but that is apparently too much trouble.  Instead, two bucks hold a third while Fu Manchu lets the snake bite him, after which he draws out some poison with a syringe.  Then, as he continues preparing the serum, the bitten man slowly dies, at which point Fu Manchu waves his hand for the other two bucks to take him away.

But I guess the producers of the movie got to feeling a little bad about portraying all these Chinese people as being so evil and cruel.  And so, while the archaeologists are on a ship heading back to England, dinner is announced by the ship’s steward, who is Chinese.  Corresponding to what Bogle referred to as a “coon” in his book, a black man who is simpleminded and cowardly, this steward might be thought of as a “yellow coon.”  Whereas Boris Karloff and Myna Loy played Chinese characters in yellowface, the producers apparently decided to let this silly character, who looks all the sillier on account of having a missing tooth, be played by an Willie Fung, an actor who was actually born in China.  Commisioner Nayland Smith (Lewis Stone), who organized the expedition, asks the steward if he is a doctor of philosophy, law, or medicine.  When he answers that he is not, Smith extends his hand and congratulates him (for knowing his place, presumably). The producers were no doubt pleased with themselves for making this magnanimous gesture, confirming in their minds the intrinsic nobility of the white race in generously allowing that there is such a thing as a “good Chinaman.”

Odds Against Tomorrow (1959)

After World War II, Hollywood began making movies portraying those who were not Caucasian in a more positive light, showing them to be not only morally and mentally equal to white people, but in many cases more virtuous or intelligent than whites as well.  Some of these movies were quite good, while others were of inferior quality.  Of all these movies, Odds Against Tomorrow was the most ham-handed, presenting a case against racism so simplistic that it is only suitable for Sunday School, provided the children in that Sunday School class have not yet reached the sixth grade.

There are two main characters:  Johnny Ingram, who is black, and Earle Slater, who is white.  Over and over, throughout this movie, we are shown how Johnny is good and Earle is bad.  Therefore, white people are not superior to black people.  Therefore, racism is wrong.

Using Robert Ryan to play Earle gives the movie a head start in making its point, inasmuch as Ryan had often played unlikable characters, and had played a bigot in both Crossfire (1947) and Bad Day at Black Rock (1955).  In the opening scene, a group of children are playing, and a little black girl accidentally runs into Earle.  He picks her up and calls her a pickaninny.  (He continues to use derogatory racist terms disparaging African-Americans during the rest of the movie.)  Then he goes into a hotel.  He is rude to the clerk, who is white, and is even ruder to the elevator operator, who is black, refusing to respond to his attempts at casual conversation.  When he gets to the room he is going to, ex-cop Dave Burke (Ed Begley) offers Earle a chance to be part of a bank robbery.  During the conversation, we find out that Earle has an explosive temper, which goes with the fact that he has served two stretches in prison, one for assault with a deadly weapon and one for manslaughter, which he later says he enjoyed.

After he leaves, Johnny arrives.  Johnny is played by Harry Belafonte.  His light skin and Caucasian features were probably supposed to make it easy for the white audience to set aside any prejudices they might have.  Johnny is really nice to those same children Earle saw earlier, and he is nice to the elevator operator, and he is nice to Dave Burke.  Gosh, he’s nice.  During their easy-going, polite conversation, it turns out that Johnny is basically law-abiding, but he plays the horses and is in debt to a loan shark.  And he is reluctant to take the job robbing the bank, but eventually agrees to because he needs the money.  Earle is reluctant to take the job too, mainly because he finds out he would be working with a black man.

Johnny is a divorced man who supports his wife with alimony.  He is still in love with her.  Earle is supported by Lorry (Shelley Winters), a woman he is shacked up with.  He cheats on her.

Johnny is a wonderful father to his daughter, and is happy to babysit her when his wife needs him to.  When Lorry asks Earle to babysit the neighbor’s child, he becomes angry and rude, and he refuses to do it.

In addition to Johnny’s being a better person than Earle regarding their moral qualities, Johnny is also smarter, of course.  When there is a snag in the plan to rob the bank, Johnny is the one who figures out a solution.

Just before the holdup, the three men separately kill time, waiting for nightfall.  Johnny is sitting by a river when suddenly he sees what appears to be a white baby floating in the water.  He is alarmed and runs over to get a closer look.  It is just a doll.  Johnny is relieved.

While Earle is sitting in his car, he sees a cute little bunny rabbit.  He smiles as he gets out his shotgun.  When the rabbit tries to run away, Earle shoots it.

The only thing that makes this movie tolerable is that it is built around a bank heist, which eventually takes place, but it all goes bad.  When Dave gets shot several times by the police, Johnny is unhappy, and he tries to save Dave.  When Dave shoots himself in the head, Earle is happy, because now Dave won’t be able to talk, possibly giving up his accomplices.

In the end, Earle and Johnny end up killing each other, blowing up a bunch of tanks with flammable liquid in the process, leaving only their charred bodies behind.  The police are unable to tell which one is which.  I guess this is supposed to be a metaphor for equality in that Earl is just as black as Johnny, so that means he is no better than Johnny.  But then, does it not follow that Johnny is no better than Earl for the same reason?  So in the process of saying one race is no better than another, this movie is also saying that one person is no better than another.