thuviaptarth | Stream of consciousness on "White America"

Entry tags:

Stream of consciousness on "White America"

White America (BtVS, Veronica Mars, Supernatural) by anonymous

So my basic take on this vid is that the vidder was so caught up in their own interpretation of the lyrics and the clips they were using that they didn't realize either part was capable of multiple interpretations independently and even more interpretations in conjunction. There are times when being able to argue equally for mutually exclusive interpretations of a work of art is good, but this is not one of them.

Eminem's "White America" is a complicated, compelling, and frustrating response to public, mass media, and even government complaints about violence, homophobia, and misogyny in rap music -- there were even Congressional hearings on it. And this is still an ongoing issue -- Eminem is responding to events from the 1990s, but there was another round of hearings in 2007 or 2008. Eminem argues that the outcry is racist and hypocritical: white America was perfectly happy to ignore rap music when it considered it "black music" and only targeted it for repression once it spread to white middle-class kids ("See the problem is, I speak to suburban kids who otherwise would've never knew these words exist, whose moms probably woulda never gave two squirts of piss, till I created so much motherfuckin' turbulence.... hip hop was never a problem in Harlem, only in Boston.") And I agree with this entirely.

It's when he gets into the white entitlement whine that I have issues: he argues his race wasn't a benefit in hip hop ("When I was underground, no one gave a fuck I was white, no labels wanted to sign me, almost gave up") and that it marks him out for extra critical attention ("so now I'm catchin' the flack from these activists when they raggin', actin' like I'm the first rapper to smack a bitch, or say faggot/shit, just look at me like I'm your closest pal, the posterchild, the mother fuckin' spokesman now for/White America"). He doesn't have white privilege, in other words. He gets it way worse than the black rappers. Which is, you know, total bullshit. [eta:

giandujakiss points out that this isn't entirely fair, because at times Eminem *does* explicitly acknowledge white privilege: "let's do the math, if I was black, I would've sold half, I Ain't have to graduate from Lincoln high school to know that."] Eminem got targeted for a lot of reasons, including his race, and also including his popularity and brilliance (he is brilliant, you know, Greg Tate in Everything But the Burden: What White People Take from Black Culture has a frustrated paragraph on Eminem in which he says, basically, Eminem's appropriating black culture but the results are fucking brilliant, goddamnit), but none of this meant he got it worse than black rappers like Public Enemy or Dr. Dre, and the racist structure of US society and the music industry both ensured that he reaped more benefits from it. And his own damn song argues against him: when black kids get into rap, they're treated like dangerous thugs who must be put down; when white kids get into rap, they're treated like precious children who must be saved. In both cases, rap--associated with blackness--is treated like a disease, a danger, an infection; but the white kids are treated like kids with a bad illness and the black kids are treated like the illness the white kids have. (I'm sorry to simplify American race relations into just two races, but I think that's actually the entire simplified stereotype that's at work here.)

So the song itself has this crucial ambiguity in which it's protesting hypocrisy and racism but it's also attempting to deny the benefits of racism that accrue to its writer. As an additional problem, at least if you're planning to use this song to protest racism, sexism, and classism, people who accuse Eminem of being misogynist and homophobic are demonstrably right. There's a level of racism, classism, and power display in the way rap is held accountable for these things and other forms of music aren't, and in the way that the worst offenders and not the best defenders are held up as representative of rap; but, basically, saying, "Lots of other people are sexist and homophobic, too" doesn't actually eliminate Eminem's responsibility for being sexist and homophobic, because personal responsibility does not work that way. (And a lot of this should probably be in the past tense. I get the impression Eminem's actually re-thought the sexism, misogyny, and homophobia in recent years--possibly because he's just tired of fighting, but I personally like to hope that's he's actually thought better of it. Like, you know, maybe as his baby girl grows up he realizes that, hey! it's not really great for her to sing vocals on a song where he's fantasizing about murdering her mother and maybe it really is not that awesome for her to exist in a world where boys call her a bitch and a ho and a piece of ass. Sometimes I'm optimistic like that.)

Anyway, any vidder who wants to use this song to address hypocrisy, racism, misogyny, classism, or political argument--and I think the one thing all viewers have agreed on is that the vidder does want to say *something* about those--has to be aware of the ambiguities in and surrounding the song and has to choose clips that will either exploit or reduce the ambiguity as best helps their argument. And instead the vidder seems to have not exactly noticed the ambiguity, or rather they had a very clear take on how *they* interpreted the lyrics and a very unrealistic expectation of how shared that interpretation would be.

The person who posted the vid (who may or may not be the vidder; how would any of us know?) says, "[I]f racial issues are the only thing that Eminem conjure up in your brain, then, well, then you listen to him differently than I do." And that right there is part of the problem. Of course other people listen to Eminem differently than the vidder does. Everyone listens to every artist differently, but that's even more the case with controversial and political artists. Additionally, the refrain of the song--and the place where the vidder cut the song to start--is Eminem shouting, "WHITE AMERICA!" [eta 2: Rewatched and I was wrong about this: the song has the original intro, and the first phrase is "AMERICA!" not "WHITE AMERICA!" But given that "WHITE AMERICA" is the refrain, I don't think associating "AMERICA" with "WHITE AMERICA" is a stretch.] That's not exactly redirecting the audience to a nonracial reading of the phrase, especially when the vid stars three white protagonist, and the second two sections of the vid (after the opening that establishes it's a multi-fandom vid) both seem to deal with race: Spike's violence against people of color and Veronica Mar's friendship and (the vid suggests) betrayal of Wallace. If the vid was meant not to deal with race, or not entirely with race, then the Spike section shouldn't have been first and/or should have focused on non-racialized violence.

These are the interpretations of the vid I can come up with so far:

Fuck you, fandom, for forgiving pretty white boys and girls anything, for cherishing every bruise on their skin and every drop of blood they shed, while never giving a fuck for all the people of color or white women or poor people they hurt on the way, let alone all the people of color and white women and poor people who aren't represented.
Fuck you, fandom, for bitching about the poor politics of my woobies or the shows my woobies are on, because they're in pain and I'm in pain because you're harshing my squee.
Fuck you, demons and monsters and rich rapists, for ruining the lives of Spike, Veronica, and Dean.

So the fact that I can get the COMPLETELY OPPOSITE readings of 1 vs. 2, and the completely different intra-textual as opposed to extra-textual readings of 1 and 2 vs. 3, are because, as an argument, the vid's a mess. It's possible to tell the vidder is angry; it's impossible to tell what they're angry about. The vid seems to switch haphazardly between treating "white America" as something inside the text and something outside the text--which it actually is, it's both a social population and a media construct--but fails to acknowledge that arguing about the text and arguing about its audience are not always identical, and/or that if "white America" is sometimes literal and sometimes a metaphor, you need to be clearer about when it's which. It is really hard for me to tell whether Spike, Veronica, and Dean are supposed to be villains or victims or both simultaneously, or who's being condemned for what.

veredus, I know, argues that the three are "punished" for their various violations and betrayals, but this doesn't work well as an intratextual argument: when Spike burns alive, he's saving the world, textually redeemed by heroism; Veronica is raped before her friendship with Wallace, the second rape attempt isn't related to a breakdown in their friendship, and indeed she actually sacrifices her own goals at significant times at Wallace's request; Dean's violence towards women (or the demons possessing women's bodies) is not a textual cause of his death or suffering.

So as a political vid, this could be arguing something I agree with, something I disagree with, or something which I think is an indefensible analysis of the text. And it's a failure, not because I don't agree with it, but because it isn't clear enough about what it's saying for me to tell what I'm supposed to be agreeing or disagreeing with.

Initially, I'd counted this as one of the two vids dealing with race, but now I'm just not sure.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Well, you already know my interpretation (2, because the anonymity is, to me, part of the vid), but I have to jump in and say you're a little unfair to Eminem. He's not denying white privilege in the song - that's the point of it:

Look at these eyes, baby blue, baby just like yourself, if they were brown, Shady lose, Shady Sits on the shelf, but Shady's cute, Shady knew, Shady's dimple's would help, make ladies swoon Baby, {ooh baby}, look at my sales, let's do the math, if I was black, I would've sold half, I Ain't have to graduate from Lincoln high school to know that

Okay, you're right. I do think he denies white privilege elsewhere ("Is my skin finally working to my benefit now?"), but that is also a really key lyric, and I should have remembered it.

My interpretation at the con was that it was an attempt at #1 so poorly designed that sometimes it unintentionally seemed to be saying #2, but now I think it might be the other way around.

Wow, thank you so much for posting this. I especially appreciate your exegesis of the Eminem song at the beginning of this post (and your points about the ways in which the song choice is problematic.)

Fuck you, fandom, for forgiving pretty white boys and girls anything, for cherishing every bruise on their skin and every drop of blood they shed, while never giving a fuck for all the people of color or white women or poor people they hurt on the way, let alone all the people of color and white women and poor people who aren't represented.

That was pretty much my interpretation, but I'm willing to own the reality that I brought that lens to the vid; given the program blurb and given the conversations about fandom and race and gender which I've observed or participated in over the last year, I assumed this was what the vid was trying to say, so I've been trying to shoehorn the vid into fitting with that interpretation.

So the fact that I can get the COMPLETELY OPPOSITE readings of 1 vs. 2, and the completely different intra-textual as opposed to extra-textual readings of 1 and 2 vs. 3, are because, as an argument, the vid's a mess.

I'm glad you said that also, because I have a tendency to assume that if a vid doesn't make sense to me the problem is in me as an unsophisticated vid-watcher. It's useful to be reminded that sometimes the problem is that the vid isn't clear.

I think -- it was very stream-of-consciousness! -- that there's this problem with figuring out who the vid defines as "White America." Of course this definition can shift over the course of the vid -- vidders do that all the time! -- but it doesn't seem to be shifting in a controlled way.

Like, if "White America" is the horde of uber-vampires that launch the vid, then White America is the enemy Spike is fighting by immolating himself. So Spike is heroically speaking out against White America/ubervampires by ... killing Slayers/people of color. If "White America" is the patriarchy/white supremacy/class hierarchy, which Spike and Veronica and Dean start out belong to, then fight, what does it mean that Spike rejoins the power structure by beating Robin Wood but go against it by destroying the ubervamps? How does Veronica's shifting class status work out? How does Dean fit in, especially since *visually* his misogyny -- the drowning of the lust demon -- is actually a textually justified action that becomes *metatextually* problematic because of the *show*'s pattern of violence against women? Is the problem Dean or the show? If Dean is meant to represent the show, why not use a Dean/Bela or Dean/Ruby interaction that offers textually unjustified misogynistic actions? Is White America the monsters people are fighting, or the people fighting the monsters?

This vid was a major dissapointment for me. What could have been an excellent springboard for discussion has done more than fallen short, but has actually confused all the possible issues in such a way that makes valuable discussion really really hard.

I'm glad you've taken the time to think through the conflicts and inconsistencies here. Hopefully this will encourage some more focussed and interesting discussion... or we can wait for the vid that will do what this could have.

Or, who knows, maybe the vidder will look at the discussion and put out a revised draft.

Thank god. I thought it was just me.

Yes, yes. I am so glad you've posted your thoughts on this vid. I was prepared to really enjoy White America -- with the chosen song and source material, I thought the vid had the potential to deliver a thought-provoking kick to fandom's (or someone's) metaphorical groin. Instead, the vid disappointed me on several different fronts, most of which you've outlined here.

Personally, I think we should spend less time discussing what we think the vid WANTS to be and more time critiquing the vid's inability to express the its arguments in any cogent way. So far, a lot of the discussion seems to assume any lingering confusion is due to the respective viewer's lack of "reading" ability or insight, and ignores the fact that this confusion could have been avoided if the vidder had made different choices. These problems are not a failure on the part of the audience. No matter how inflammatory your song choice or subject matter, if you make a "fuck you" vid and your audience is left completely unsure of who or what you are saying "fuck you" to, then you are doing something wrong.

And, as you've pointed in your comment above, the vidder now has the chance to use the critique to make a better (and better-structured) vid -- a vid that I, for one, would be interested in watching. Obviously, there is something the vidder wants to say; I wouldn't mind knowing what that is.

So far, a lot of the discussion seems to assume any lingering confusion is due to the respective viewer's lack of "reading" ability or insight, and ignores the fact that this confusion could have been avoided if the vidder had made different choices. These problems are not a failure on the part of the audience. No matter how inflammatory your song choice or subject matter, if you make a "fuck you" vid and your audience is left completely unsure of who or what you are saying "fuck you" to, then you are doing something wrong.

Well, it's a general tendency in fandom to assume that things that don't work for you are some kind of mismatch or misunderstanding, rather than a failure of execution, and it's exacerbated in vidding, which a lot of viewers don't feel competent to judge, or need more than one viewing to understand, or are not at their sharpest on the third or fourth day of a con suffering sleep deprivation, vid shock, and probably really strange approaches to nutrition (hi!) So I understand where the attitude is coming from.

But I also feel like, in lots of cases where I don't understand vids, especially after the first viewing at VVC, when other people make arguments about the vid, their takes make sense. And usually *someone* will have a convincing take on the vid, instead of *everyone* groping for interpretations, as is happening here.

I'm still downloading the vid, but a question occurred to me as someone who isn't a part of the vidding community (but is a slash writer, instead). As fans, we're trained to make sense of discontinuity and nonsense in canon. Do vid-watchers (and even vid-makers) bring the same mindset to watching vids because vids are, like canon TV, visual media?

I was thinking of how Eisenstein argued for montage, and how fans are Eisensteiniens by nurture, if that makes any sense.

Whereas with text, I tend to suspect that fans are less likely to do the close reading to try to make sense of something that strikes them as incoherent, and more likely to shrug and move on to another story.

It's the Veronica section that perplexes me the most because I see strong arguments for a fucked up privileged class in the scene with Duncan holding his dead sister and in Beaver on the roof, but I don't see much evidence of Veronica being implicated along with them *or* standing against them. But then, I'm assuming the Veronica section is *supposed* to be about class and/or race.

Well, it could also be about sexism because of all the images of the rape and the rape attempt, and the close-up on Beaver's name, but I ... still don't have any idea what the argument is. That the abused become abusers? That the abusers/privileged are damaged by violence too?

Yes, but then is the vid attacking Spike's and Dean's sexism and showing Veronica as counterpoint? Or is the vid trying to imply that Veronica-as-victim shows the same sexism as Spike and Dean--or the same female victimization in their scenes? My head hurts.

"That the abusers/privileged are damaged by violence too?"
Yeah, I could see that with Duncan, especially. And I wonder why Logan didn't appear since I could see him being used to support one and two of the three possible interpretations you laid out.

I was thinking of Beaver and Veronica more than Duncan (I think Veronica was sometimes cruel rather than being abusive, but I can see the point if I tilt my head and squint hard). But you're right, Logan would have fit better.

I am really puzzled by the choice of protagonists (? focal points ?), because if it's show protagonists it should be Buffy, Veronica, Dean (or Dean &/or Sam), and if it's pretty white boy woobies it should be Spike, Logan, Dean. I don't feel like Veronica has the same relationship to fandom that Spike and Dean do.

No, but since I'm going with Reading 2, it makes sense. Spike has been criticized politically, Dean has been criticized politically, and really all of VMars has been criticized politically including the victimization of Veronica and the rape storylines.

Yes, if the vid is trying to implicate the shows, then the character focuses are too narrow. (I can make no sense of the Clarence and Gunn clips in the beginning).

Exactly, woobies, but I could see those three being used for "Fuck your woobies, fandom" or "Leave my woobies alone."

I kind of WANT the vid to be saying, "You only care about rebels when they look like you, but each of these 'rebellious' figures is standing in/appropriating another (black) hero/ine who could have been the hero/ine of the story."

But I'm not at all sure that that's what it IS saying.

Edited 2008-08-22 16:55 (UTC)

Or that fandom has the same relationship to Veronica as it does to Spike and Dean, I should have said.

Eminem is brilliant, but could he not have come up with a better rhyme for the chorus than repeating my first name over and over? It freaks me out whenever I hear the song. Plus I don't think it's a girl's name particularly representative of White America, given that one of the best-known Erica/Erika's in the country is Bill Cosby's daughter.

But as to the vid, yes: I downloaded it last night and was very, very confused as to what argument was being made. It was even more head-tilting than "Supersmart".

Oddly enough, as a kid who was in high school during the Columbine massacre and when "White America" came out, I've always for some reason assumed Eric was a reference to Eric Harris, who was blond, blue-eyed, and babyfaced. Though in googling them now, there's really nothing explicit in the lyrics to suggest this at all (maybe that was just the face associated with the name Eric for me at the time?). But it always added/adds an extra bite to the song for me.

I'm so glad you posted this. Before I watched the vid I happened to read the vidder's own comments and the brief comments of a few others, which only told me that there was some kind of message in the vid. So I watched it and I was looking for the message, and of course, you know when you do that, it doesn't work. I was left confused and jumbled by the vid and wondering what all the fuss was about (other than, of course, that it's a really well made vid). I mean, I think I got pieces of things. But after reading this post, suddenly NOW I GET IT.

I won't tell you what my interpretation ultimately is, because that just muddies the waters more. But I'm going to enjoy having it, now that I have it. It's so frustrating when everyone's chattering about something and you're lost.

I won't tell you what my interpretation ultimately is, because that just muddies the waters more.

THAT IS SO UNFAIR!

OK fine! My interpretation is that the vidder doesn't have a message beyond "I'm going to put really pretty clips of my favorite characters to the lyrics of this song, and submit it for the fuck you challenge." And some things happen to randomly line up. Because this vid is more about the song than the characters.

HOW'S THAT :D

Well, for starters, vidding anything to Eminem means that the first viewing isn't a viewing at all; I literally stopped watching the vid and just listened, trying to grasp the complexity of the lyric. I can't imagine that helps an argument.

For seconds, there are the three source texts, which except for fannish attention don't have a lot in common. A single-protagonist, a dyad, and an ensemble; two set in California and one a road show; two highschool/college and one older; two relatively young (3 seasons) and one a 7-season granny; two shows done and one still alive; and in the cases of the characters being considered, Veronica is the titular protagonist, Dean is one of two contract players, and Spike is a late and somewhat controversial addition to an ensemble show. Also, Spike is a supernatural creature, and Veronica and Dean are (basically) ordinary.

So just trying to put the texts side by side is already a problem: their similarities are not immediately apparent. Trying to put the texts side by side with a lyric that is difficult to parse and full of code-switching, more problematic. Trying to do all that and make a point, whether textual or extratextual... I could not tell you what the vid is doing at all.

I who am enemy of the obvious am saying this, so I think it is fair to say that the vid made no sense to too many people.

Well, for starters, vidding anything to Eminem means that the first viewing isn't a viewing at all; I literally stopped watching the vid and just listened, trying to grasp the complexity of the lyric.

I can see that as a problem for some people, but I knew the song, so I didn't have any problem parsing the lyrics.

I'm not convinced Veronica Mars is more a single protagonist show than BtVS or BtVS more an ensemble than Veronica Mars, but that doesn't help, because the cast parallels should be Veronica = Buffy and Logan = Spike/Angel/Riley, depending on how you read Logan. But in any case, it's not clear why particular characters were chosen.

The other thing is, the different natures of the shows aren't an insurmountable difficulty. You're not likely to watch

obsessive24's "Climbing Up the Walls" because of the content, but she draws numerous visual and thematic parallels between three pairs of characters from two ensembles and one dyad-focused show. The decision criteria are clear, and some of them are really obvious and some of them are less obvious.

No indeed, not an insurmountable difficulty. But the parallels don't jump out at one in this case; they take a great deal of work -- and the vidder not having done that work (properly, or enough), the viewer ends up trying to do it, and throws up her hands in disgust.

I will say, generally speaking, an anonymous vid on the theme of "fuck you" automatically gets way less shrift from me, because is seems like a grand opportunity for wank. I'm not really sure it's worth all the puzzled effort I am putting into it, you know?

I find that I'm not interested spending my limited time in analyzing a vid that I find incoherent, but I agree with you that it's a failure, not because I don't agree with it, but because it isn't clear enough about what it's saying for me to tell what I'm supposed to be agreeing or disagreeing with. I'm a little WTF? at the people I see calling it brilliant -- they definitely are seeing something that I don't; I think they are seeing something that isn't (intentionally) there.

And I thought you might find this amusing: Some people decided, after some discussion, that they had figured the vid out: It was a fuck you to Vividcon, in that the vid didn't mean anything/was purposefully muddled.

And I thought you might find this amusing: Some people decided, after some discussion, that they had figured the vid out: It was a fuck you to Vividcon, in that the vid didn't mean anything/was purposefully muddled.

... Oh. That ... kind of makes me hate humanity.

Perhaps I should supply more context: after some discussion of the contradictory possible interpretations, they basically threw up their hands and said, mostly joking, that it's really about nothing. (They don't actually think that it is intentionally about nothing).

I, however, was truly concerned that the vid was (an attempt) at some kind of fuck-you to VVC or the VVC audience, and the (presumed) vidder's post has actually 1) eased my concerns about that but 2) made me even less interested in rewatching this particular vid.

As

sweetestdrain said above Obviously, there is something the vidder wants to say; I wouldn't mind knowing what that is but I'm convinced that rewatching isn't going to help. A new version, a different meta post by the (presumed) vidder - I might pay attention to those. Hell, even a different blurb in the program could have helped.

ITA. This was an extremely poorly made vid, the vidder absolutely put more time and forethought into remaining anonymous than actually *making* the vid and I'm done with discussing it.

If the vidder wanted to make an awful vid that was *almost* able to say something but then fell flat, terribly flat (and wasted a fucking GOLDMINE of an opportunity, dammit. I mourn for the vid that wasn't) and did it on purpose? Then, heh. I don't think this was the case - I didn't get that level of awareness in the reading of the lyrics.

I get that many people feel that perhaps the fault in reading the vid lies with them. I am fairly confident, hell, I am fuckingconfident as HELL in my ability to read a vid and this vid? Says nothing and does a piss poor job of saying nothing. I'm a bit pissed off, again, because it could have been different and amazing and I hate being disappointed.

Reading the meta here now it seems like quite a few people are throwing up their hands at the vid and saying to it (appropriately enough): Fuck You. But I'm still on my second and a half time watching it, so I just wanted to throw out there what I got out of it, because...I'm finding the discussion interesting enough to make up for the lack of coherence in the vid itself, and if I don't say: "hey here's what I saw" now then I'm never going to say it. I mean, put it another way: I'm glad I watched the vid, even if it's obviously not polished or good or coherent or whatever.

So my initial interpretation is this: this is about being a part of White America and a) rejecting it, b) not realizing you're a part of it, c) getting rejected by it, or d) some combination of the three at once. Being part of something and yet marginalized by it at the same time. Enjoying and hating it. Benefiting and getting hurt by it. Being a hero and a villian. So I don't think it's about racism or classism or sexism so much as it is about 'being white' and how sometimes 'being white' is impacted by the various -isms. That's what I see. But..like people have been saying--it's a crapshoot.

And, if the vidder is reading this: I want to chime in and say that I would *love* a revised version of this, since this version is almost but not quite maybe there. (And also because, over it, hangs the spector of being anonymous. Which is this whole other part that I find...not fascinating, but. Something. I'm not yet sure what.)

It is really hard for me to tell whether Spike, Veronica, and Dean are supposed to be villains or victims or both simultaneously, or who's being condemned for what.

I agree that it's a muddle, but after waaayyy too much thought, my best guess is that it's a fuck you to the characters and a celebration of the fact that they ultimately get what they deserve (from a certain POV) - it's not clear-cut punishment, but it could be read as karma. It's the only thing that makes Veronica's inclusion make sense to me, because by the end of the series, it seemed like she was more hated than beloved by a big part of the fandom.

Initially, I'd counted this as one of the two vids dealing with race, but now I'm just not sure.

Yeah, I think people tried to read it that way (logically enough), but the vidder was trying to do something else or, more likely, trying to do too many things at once and letting the point get lost.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Stream of consciousness on "White America"

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Maybe I should change my LJ name to secondthoughts

Re: Maybe I should change my LJ name to secondthoughts

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

is the discussion over on this yet? I can't tell.

no subject