American History X - The Concept of State and Ethnic Conflicts

Set in the United States, the film focuses on the lives of Derek Vinyard (Edward Norton) and Danny Vinyard (Edward Furlong) in the underground drama of the American gangs and establishes their narrative within the conflict between neo-Nazis and black community groups. Using a dual narrative feature, director Tony Kaye explores the story of Derek and his journey as a white supremacist through the eyes of his brother, Danny, who tells his story while writing a school essay entitled American History X that gives name to the long one in the original).

In his aesthetic choices, Tony Kaye appeals to the screen feature in black and white to distinguish the past narrated by Danny from the present where Danny is not regarded as the narrator of his brother’s story, but the main focus of the narrative exposing the conflicts between the young man in the environment that was exposed and how his brother, changed after his experience in prison (the consequence of having murdered two black men), tries to collaborate so that Danny does not end up having the same future. And on such a journey, Avery Brooks' character, Dr. Bob Sweeney, one of the teachers (black - this detail is relevant) of the school where Danny studies, appears as a collaborator in trying to demonstrate to Danny, by confronting him with story of his brother, the consequences of the choices he made.

In addition to being effective in its dramatic execution, relying on the screenplay by David McKenna does a beautiful job in building the characters and how they can humanize and make the viewer cling to and care for such controversial characters - not to use other terms - the film can excellently expose, in noises of a bitter reality, the problem of racial disputes in North American soil. As an object of fictitious analysis, The Other American History (American History X) manages to transport the viewer beyond a drama of fiction and, in a solid way, explores concepts that touch at the heart of the formation of the United States as a State and as its history is presented as a basis for the racial problems that existed in the year of launching the show (1998), and which undoubtedly are present to this day.

If there is a scene that best represents the problem of racial disputes, it is the basketball court scene, where a discussion arises in the midst of an apparent innocent match between a skinheads gang and other characters, black community, a conflict of power establishment is established. With nerves changed, both sides decide to make an agreement where after a match the winning group becomes "owner" of the space, there being no longer the permission for the rival group to access the place. In a context of sport conflict and micro consequence, the narrative exposes in detail the American history and how it has been the relations between the different ethnic groups since the formation of the American State.



By invoking basic concepts about the definition of the State, characteristics such as sovereignty are manifested; the territory; the people; and the purposes of the State. Defining each of these characteristics requires careful and patient work in exploring all the details and controversies surrounding the issue, something Dalmo Dallari seeks to do in his book "Elements of General Theory of State." However, looking at these concepts may be of great use in understanding the gravity and depth that The Other American History explores in its narrative, whether in a meager basketball game or in the direct killings and conflicts between the characters in the narrative.

Returning to using the well-known scene as an iconic example of the film, we see in this conflict that the representation of the magnitude of racial conflicts around the American state can even be considered on a "soft" scale: in the beginning, it is enough to analyze the strong emphasis on the notion domain over the established space. In this context, we make the parallel with the notion of territory and sovereignty, where the space of the block ceases to represent a common entertainment environment and becomes the representation of a political domain of one ethnic group over the other, something that even reverberates in the supremacist mentality of neo-Nazi groups who in their narratives emphasize a superiority that gives them the legitimate right to belong to the territory and with it the privilege of having the best jobs and the best social conditions, because, after all, for them, that place it belongs to them, who out of sight is nothing more than an intruder taking the space that already has owner.

This notion of belonging to one group and rejection of another demonstrates the North American drama of dealing with an antagonism between the people themselves, a drama that has its genesis constituted in the very conception of the formation of the United States as a country, since relations between whites and blacks are consequences of years of slavery. Dallari, in his book, emphasizes the notion of people as the individual’s belonging to the state, conceptualizing the citizen, who is both part of this state and executor of his actions, as submitted to it (do not confuse here people with population, who would be nothing more than the number of individuals present in the territory, but who do not necessarily have a relation of belonging to the sovereign state in the same territory).

The problem of racial disputes varies so much between a dispute between peoples belonging to a direct relationship with the State, since the American man is not only white but also many native blacks and others who belong to different ethnic groups but who establish a relation of citizenship, as well as a dispute against immigrant individuals who represent only the concept of population. But in order to focus here on the problematic most emphasized by the film, it is possible to emphasize the fact that the United States, formed upon an imaginary ideal of plurality, ends up not being able to promote to its people a unique feeling of nation, Is America in White the Same America as Black?


Still using Dallari, we understand that nation constitutes a community founded on historical and cultural ties that are linked through a social affection and an identity of belonging, independently of legal ties. The problem is sustained when there is just a nation divided as a nation. The dichotomy between these communities ends up creating an internal conflict that disfigures the image of a United States capable of representing the interests of its people, and all this is due to the formation of a state that has failed to establish harmonious conviviality among its people, since his birth is due to the exploitation of part of his people. The American State fails to provide the basic purpose it should provide for its purpose: the notion of the common good formulated by Pope John XXIII, which basically consists in promoting the self-government of individuals belonging to the State (citizens) to seek, in their various their own interests.

2019, 21st century, and it can still be said that the game of basketball seems more heated than ever. The narrative of an exclusive membership of American territory still echoes in the minds of many representatives of the white population, see the case of Charlottesville, and the atmosphere of conflict and antoginism that does not seem to see its end. The internationalist, political scientist and economist Samuel Huntington argues in his book "The Clash of Civilizations" the idea that the origin of post-war conflicts would be present in the dispute between different civilizations and cultural identities. Far from me the idea of ​​wanting to say here whether his controversial thesis is correct or not, I would point out, however, that, first and foremost, American History X demonstrates in an internal and everyday context a painful and bitter conflict of "civilizations".

Article also published on: https://medium.com/@victoroliver/american-history-x-c3b2289346a