In what ways is the depiction of the Texas borderland as "multi-cultural
and multi-racial" ironic, seeing as there is a patriarchal white savior
narrative that dictates the plot?
Rio County is structured by the hierarchies of race and
power and it’s most centralized vehicle of systemic power is the sheriff’s
department; in what ways does hegemonic whiteness (and privilege) rear itself
in Mexican/Tejano spaces and narratives within the movie?
The interactions between three distinct racialized groups account
for the tension within the town: the “anglo’s,” the black people, and the Mexicans.
How does the representation of the interactions between the Anglos and the
Mexicans, the Anglos and Black people, and the nonexistent interactions between
the Mexicans and Black people express the racial separatism present in this
movie?
In the film Lone Star, the multi-culturalism that exists in the small town of Frontera is burdened by boundaries. Despite the literal borders prevailing between Texas and Mexico, many of the inhabitants of Frontera contend with the divisions that affect culture, identity, and race. Writer and Director, John Sayles, sets up the tension of this town early on in the film; a scene where members of a school board are having a heated argument, about what the history teacher, Pilar Cruz, is facilitating to her students. The scene is divided between Anglo and Chicano parents and school board members. And, while Pilar argues that she aims to teach history in it’s “complete picture”, including the harsh, negative outcomes of historical events, the Anglos are outraged at her attempts to do so.
ReplyDeleteWhat’s striking about this scene, and why it’s so important, is how it exemplifies the town’s issue of intersectionality, which is really just a shallow surface of prejudice. There are individuals like the Anglo parent/school board member yelling “bragging rights” about violent wars, the vexed social justice warrior who believes he’s adding “a little historical perspective”, and (the worst of them all) the Anglo woman who believes in the idea of “cultures coming together” as with “like music and food and all”, adding a dash of microaggression with her white fragility. Pilar and a few of the other teachers do their best to remain within reason, within the mass of outrage.
Although the the film is lead by the narrative of Sam Deeds, I don’t think he fits the white savior archetype. In John Sayles’ framing of the character, Sam is portrayed as an individual who works from a place of power, rather than one who desires to abuse it, or reaping the benefits from Frontera’s racial stratification - unlike Charles Wade.
Sam’s morality isn’t glorious, and doesn’t tread towards that, nor does he try to save any of the marginalized groups in the town from any sort of peril. In fact, the conflicts that shadow the film’s characters mainly involve their own domestic and societal relationships. And, like Sam, Mercedes, Pilar, Otis and Delmar all work from their own place of power. The unravelling issues of intersectionality are dealt with individually, leaving some of the character’s values or ideologies to be redefined by the circumstances that challenge them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete1)This movie claims to be about the issues of dealing with what is referred to as a "melting pot", where Anglos, Black and Latino people are all trying to co-exist in this border town. What is ironic about this idea is that there are very little interactions happening where people from these three ethnic groups interact in a positive or healthy way. The entire story is based on Sam Deed's journey with getting out from under his father's legendary shadow, solving an old murder where his father is suspected and reconnecting with his old Latina love interest. Many of the interactions depicted refer to or involve some kind of borderline to emphasize how separate these communities are from one another. If Sam interacts with the Latino community it is just Anglo’s and Latin’s. The same goes for his interactions with the Black community. There is little to no interaction in this film where a representative from all three communities sit down have a conversation or any interaction. Ironically, the Anglo characters are often seen complaining about how much of the town is being taken over by the “other,” but there are very little interactions between them. The argument at the school between how complete of a picture the students should receive about the town’s historical past is a perfect example of how much of a fight there is between these communities when trying to “blend” together harmoniously.
ReplyDelete2)White privilege is a huge issue in this film and is often depicted outright. Sheriff Charlie Wade’s entire character is built on his belief in white privilege and his ability to extort and exploit the Black and Latino community. The viewer sees Charlie charge money for “protection”, kill Eladio Cruz for attempting to smuggle people across the border without his permission, beat up and humiliate Otis at his own bar, and almost kill Otis for not “following the rules” that he set up in the town. It’s also important to see the effect white privilege has on the Latino community, specifically with Mercedes and Pilar. Not only is Mercedes an advocate for the wall blocking immigration, but she also attempts to call the cops on those who she sees crossing the border. She has established herself in the community and has become an integral businesswoman, who believes in the laws in town while forgetting her own immigrant past. She has assimilated (or ties to) herself within the community, believing herself to be beyond the immigrant who passes through the river to cross the border. It is also later revealed that she has had an affair with Sam’s father Buddy resulting in Pilar’s conception. Since Mercedes was under the “protection” of Buddy Deeds, she has received some of the “white privilege” that allows Buddy to carry on with two women, and still be considered a legend. This privilege is echoed again with Sam and Pilar’s relationship, which not only allows Sam to do what he pleases (essentially carrying on an incestuous relationship) but also ties Pilar by blood, allowing her to “elevate” her status as an Anglo-Latina.
3)The entire army base, and the generational problem of Otis’s family are seen and dealt with only among other Black people in the film. Otis’s only other interaction outside of his familial problems is with the mayoral candidate Hollis and Sam, because they are chained to each other with the secret death of Charlie Wade. This is ironic due to how much the Anglo characters reveal their discomfort with the interracial army couple drinking in the bar. The bartender goes as far to say that Buddy Deeds wouldn’t’ve allowed that. The Latin characters are only seen as either attempting to assimilate, such as Mercedes and the next candidate in line to be sheriff, who believe in the system they are abiding by, or they are breaking the rules by crossing into the border illegally. The only times we see the Black and Latin characters interact is at the school where Pilar is lecturing on the history of the war and Chet isn’t paying attention, (signaling an education barrier) and at the prison where the Latin policeman is locking away a black man. Any time these two specific communities interact it is to signal how alike yet different they are, almost to the degree where Latins are higher due to education and their willingness to assimilate. Through these very limited interactions with all the characters, I think it’s quite obvious that racial separatism is still alive and thriving despite what the characters are trying to tell the viewer.
DeleteIt's really interesting that you point out the interactions, or lack there of, between the Mexicans and black people in this movie because that's something that can be looked over, especially with the dual nature of this film. I found it odd how John Sayles tried telling two different stories at the same time, mixing them in time but not in context. This mixing without interaction paints these conflicts as individual and makes sure that the viewer knows these two groups are distinct. It doesn't help that Sayles has his white protagonist become the bridge that keeps these two sections together, but that's the unfortunate nature of having a single character tie the gap between different things. This is probably a testament to Sayles' American view since it does seem like he writes the Anglos as the dominant group despite admitting to being the minority in that area. This white power becomes the dividing factor in the movie and it keeps the two problems of the two groups separate.
ReplyDelete