# data[].attributes.body
This discusses the problems of holding onto hate. The writer discusses how this movie is used by the Alt-right as a argument against emotional arguments.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If there's one line most moviegoers remember from American History X, it's the famous one in its final act: "Hate is baggage. Life's too short to be pissed off all the time."

That line is not, however, what viewers from the "alt-right" remember.

The movie, directed by Tony Kaye (who grew up in an Orthodox Jewish household in Britain) and released two decades ago this year, casts then-rising star Edward Norton as proud skinhead Derek Vinyard. Nazi paraphernalia adorns his room, and he has a thick black swastika tattooed across his chest. But after getting released from jail, Derek starts looking for ways to escape.

Most people realize the film is a cogent analysis of modern hatred, skeptical of the logic behind racially incited violence but giving it credence by representing it fairly. White nationalists, however, see that representation as an endorsement of their mentality.

"Derek's arguments in favour of a race realist perspective are sound, informed, and quite frankly excellent," writes Spencer Quinn in Counter Currents Publishing, a white-nationalist blog. "In the same way that all American country boys carry a Huckleberry Finn in their hearts, everyone on the 'alt-right' should carry a Derek Vinyard."

Folks on the Reddit web forum "Debate the 'Alt-Right'" agree, with one member saying it "does give somewhat a fair voice to some of our ideas."
READ: SUPERHERO STORIES ARE PARABLES ABOUT EXCLUSION
Perhaps the most incisive argument for American History X being a pro neo-Nazi film comes from one commenter on Quinn's essay, who notes that the film "failed at being anti-racist because it gave the whites the best argument and only combats this logic with muh feels." (That's slang for "my feelings," a pejorative that"alt-righters" use to dismiss any arguments hinging on emotions.)

I am loath to ever agree with neo-Nazis, but regarding this film, they have a point. Vinyard's speeches are eloquent, stemming from (myopic) reason and (limited) lived experience, and other white nationalists in the film - such as his father, who rails against affirmative action because he believes in true equal opportunity - are drawn out like intellectuals. Nobody in the movie makes a strong verbal argument for multiculturalism.

Most viewers, of course, do not need a strong verbal argument for multiculturalism, because the film exists in a world of moral objectivity, where there is right and wrong, and neo-Nazis are so profoundly, obviously wrong that it literally goes without saying. But if you happen to be a neo-Nazi, and you believe you are crusading toward a glistening "white ethnostate" inexplicably cleansed of Jews and visible minorities, you wouldn't necessarily catch on to that.

And therein lies the problem: modern society is ignoring the "alt-right," and that's not working. By banning folks like Faith Goldy from speaking on campuses, by petitioning web hosts like GoDaddy to take down neo-Nazi websites, we are refusing to engage with them in debate. We prefer to roll our eyes and brush them off because their ideas are needless to refute - they're just patently morally wrong.

But to the "alt-right," that isn't convincing. It's not even just censorship - it's an admission of defeat. When opponents refuse to engage, "alt-righters" hear, "We don't have a good enough argument, so just shut up, please." They see Elliott Gould in American History X walking away in pained silence after Derek, who just dominated an aggressive argument over Rodney King that escalated into physical violence, threatened to "cut your Shylock nose off and stick it up your ass."

These people claim they want a "debate." They want to prove they're right in a battle of ideas. Whatever that debate looks like, we're not having it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 'alt-right's' relationship with American History X

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If there's one line most moviegoers remember from American History X, it's the famous one in its final act: "Hate is baggage. Life's too short to be pissed off all the time." That line is not, however, what viewers from the "alt-right" remember.

# data[].attributes.body
This gives another perspective of the ethnic problems. It discusses some of the scenes in more depth. This also involves the discussions on the state helping immigrants.

# data[].attributes.body
This article discusses the origin of Derek Vinyard. This is important to show that this person was real and more background of him. Adds more depth to the movie.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
American History X-treme

Frank Meeink is the most famous ex-skinhead in America, his life the basis for the character of Derek Vinyard, the neo-Nazi portrayed by Edward Norton in American History X. But Frank is not quite Derek; as he states in Autobiography of a Recovering Skinhead, " American History X isn't my story. It's every skinhead's story to some extent... it was every other kid who ever got sucked up into the white supremacy movement."

Frank's tale, as told to Jody M. Roy, Ph.D., is a harrowing look at the white supremacist, neo-Nazi, and skinhead movements in the US, a graphic depiction of a broken home, drug abuse, addiction, and self-destruction. In South Philly, where "talking shit to somebody's grandma can get you killed," Frank is raised in and out of dysfunctional homes and streets infested by ethnic gangs. His only love and release is hockey, and he feels an atavistic pull toward violence, alcohol, and the notoriety offered by white supremacist gangs. Soon he starts beating the hell out of gays and blacks and homeless people. But the objects of his most intense hatred are Jews: "I felt alive when they bled. I craved the power I felt surging through my veins every time I slammed my boot into some dude's face."

Frank's tattoo repertoire includes a swastika on his neck, a ten-inch portrait of Joseph Goebbels on his chest, S-K-I-N-H-E-A-D across his knuckles. When he gets busted after assaulting a gay man one of Frank's comrades taunts the arresting officer, "I'm Charles Manson, and I've got the swastikas to prove it... on my dick. Come on, copper, suck my swastika!"

The narrative borders on sensationalism: Meeink is beaten regularly by his stepfather, his mother lives on pills and alcohol, Frank roams the streets and whomps everyone's ass, until he himself is raped at gunpoint. The author and editors of Autobiography were clearly concerned about the factual accuracy of these stories; they ran background checks and consulted Meeink's friends, family, counselors, jailers, and social workers, until they were satisfied with the accuracy of Meeink's memories.

Amazingly brutal and difficult to digest, Autobiography follows Frank from childhood through his involvement with the white supremacist movement, a felony conviction, and incarceration, introducing readers to the Aryan Nations, the National Alliance, the KKK, and other groups. They celebrate Hitler's birthday, swap theories about the Zionist Occupational Government, debate the Turner Diaries (a book that influenced Timothy McVeigh), and revere the thugs in A Clockwork Orange. Frank claims to believe in God but accepts the white supremacist version of Christianity. He gushes when introduced to a neo-Nazi hero, describing him as an "Aryan warrior" and "the most hardcore white supremacist I'd met... The red laces in his Doc Martens dripped blood" before the two of them assault a homosexual outside a gay bar. "I felt proud, truly proud, for the first time," Meeink recalls.

When he's caught on film committing assault, Frank is arrested and pleads guilty, receiving a sentence of three to five years in prison. His girlfriend is pregnant, he's an alcoholic, he's suicidal. "You're not a 'race warrior,'" his girlfriend tells him. "You're a thug." In Illinois' Stateville Correctional Center, he becomes a "skinhead celebrity." But prison opens his eyes. Black inmates offer more support and solidarity than the other skinheads. He plays football on an all-black team. His best friends in prison are black and rather than descend to a deeper white supremacy he sees everyone as of one race.

The transformation continues after his release. He forms a friendship with a Jewish employer and starts speaking out against racism, though without breaking bonds of friendship with his skinhead brothers who eventually brand him a traitor to the race and subject him to the "Axis Stomp." Addictions with alcohol, cocaine, pills, and heroin while fathering three children with three women add to his drama. However, he starts speaking publicly about the follies of white supremacy, achieves celebrity, and commands lecture fees of $2,000 or more. A life of relative stability begins as he founds Harmony through Hockey, marries, and reconnects with his family.

For all the focus on Meeink's addictions and travails, Autobiography of a Recovering Skinhead doesn't provide much introspection by its subject. As if to compensate, the book ends with an interview of both Meeink and Roy, in which he discusses religion, spirituality, and his newfound tolerance. "No matter the race or any other differences, we learn to walk at the same time, at about one year, we start to learn to talk at the same time... we're all human, we all care about the growth of our children." It would seem to be a tale of redemption, relevant to any reader who wants to understand hatred and take part in the process of forgiveness. But the book's lasting impression is of the brutality of Meeink's earlier incarnation, and one wonders if those drawn to white supremacy and hatred could take any lessons from it before their beliefs come to harm others.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
American History X-treme Frank Meeink is the most famous ex-skinhead in America, his life the basis for the character of Derek Vinyard, the neo-Nazi portrayed by Edward Norton in American History X. But Frank is not quite Derek; as he states in Autobiography of a Recovering Skinhead , " American History X isn't my story.

# data[].attributes.body
This discusses the film from a philosophical perspective. It is important to take a more logical stance rather than emotion. This breaks down the racism of the film.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
AMERICAN HISTORY X (1998)

PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES: Racism

CHARACTERS: Derek Vineyard (Edward Norton), Danny Vineyard (Edward Furlong, Derek's Brother), Doris Vineyard (Beverly D'Angelo, Derek's Mother), Dr. Bob Sweeney (Avery Brooks, Danny's Principal), Cameron Alexander (Stacy Keach, Derek's former mentor), Murray (Elliot Gould, Danny's History teacher and Doris's former love interest).

OTHER FILMS BY DIRECTOR TONY KAYE: Snowblind (2002), "Tony Kaye's Documentary" (1995, TV Series)

SYNOPSIS: An American Neo-Nazi (Derek) goes to jail for race related charges (voluntary manslaughter). While in jail he becomes aware of the flaws in his idealist racial philosophy and changes his ways. After he's released, he struggles to stop his younger brother (Danny) from following in his footsteps and eventually convinces him to give up the Neo-Nazi lifestyle. In a tragic turn of events, Danny is shot and killed by a black classmate that he'd insulted earlier.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. The opening scenes of the movie depict a calm and beautiful beach filmed in black and white. What might be the symbolic significance of this opening scene?

2. In the film, Danny has a history assignment from Murray. The assignment is to be a report on a book relating to the struggle for civil rights. Danny turned in a book report on "Mein Kampf". Murray sees this as "unacceptable" and "dangerous". Dr. Sweeney disagrees, saying "You did this to yourself Murray; you told them they could do a paper on "anything related to the struggle for civil rights", in plain English!" Is Sweeney's argument justified?

3. Dr. Sweeney confronts Danny about his book report on "Mein Kampf" and brings up Derek's release on the same morning. Danny replies, "If you brought me in here to talk about Derek you're wasting your time, what happened to him has nothing to do with me," to which Sweeney replies "Everything you do has something to do with Derek." Given Sweeney's thoughts on this, why is he so adamant that Danny's new paper assignment be about Derek?

4. Why was the incident where Danny blew smoke in the black student's face played in slow motion?

5. Derek's father, who was a fireman, was shot and killed by a drug dealer while trying to extinguish a blaze in a bad neighborhood. A news crew did an interview with Derek shortly after. Derek argued that his father's death was race related. Was Derek's transformation into a Neo-Nazi already underway at that point, or was it his father's murder that triggered it?

6. Several times in the movie, different characters refer to Cameron Alexander as a manipulator who preys on insecure children to bolster his ranks. Why might more insecure kids be better candidates for recruitment into such a life-altering philosophical schema?

7. In two scenes in the movie, the Swastika on Derek's chest is covered by a hand. First, a police officer covers it coincidentally when Derek is being taken into custody, and second when Derek is back home and looking at himself in the mirror after exiting the shower. How might these events be symbolically related?

8. What difference in the convictions of Derek's race philosophy and the other skinhead's race philosophy sparked Derek's split with them? Why would this event (aside from his subsequent rape) lead him to change his opinions about his philosophy?

9. What was the ultimate reason for Derek's switch in his philosophy on race while he was in prison?

10. Later in the movie, the audience discovers that Derek's initial racist thoughts might have been cultivated by his father, rather than by Cameron, as the audience has been led to believe. Does this situation accurately reflect reality and the way most young people acquire such beliefs?

Author: Carey McFarland

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
American History X (Philosophical Films)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES: Racism CHARACTERS: Derek Vineyard (Edward Norton), Danny Vineyard (Edward Furlong, Derek's Brother), Doris Vineyard (Beverly D'Angelo, Derek's Mother), Dr. Bob Sweeney (Avery Brooks, Danny's Principal), Cameron Alexander (Stacy Keach, Derek's former mentor), Murray (Elliot Gould, Danny's History teacher and Doris's former love interest).

# data[].attributes.headline
Why every millennial needs to watch American History X

# data[].attributes.subject
Why every millennial needs to watch American History X

# data[].attributes.body
This discusses relevancy in modern social climate. Many scenes are discussed further in this article. Shows the perspective of another millennial living in this time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
My mom has been telling me to watch "American History X" with her since I was roughly 16 years old. She said it was the most socially relevant movie she has ever seen. It came out in 1998. Finally, we got around to watching it. And I realized how socially relevant it is, it was, and it, sadly, will continue to be.

This movie is so important for everyone in the United States and the world needs to see it. Before I jump into stating why this is a very important movie to watch and lessons you can learn from it, let me tell you a little bit about the synopsis of this movie, directly from Google as they have said it better than I could:

"Living a life marked by violence and racism, neo-Nazi Derek Vinyard (Edward Norton) finally goes to prison after killing two black youths who tried to steal his car. Upon his release, Derek vows to change his ways; he hopes to prevent his younger brother, Danny (Edward Furlong), who idolizes Derek, from following in his footsteps. As he struggles with his own deeply ingrained prejudices and watches their mother grow sicker, Derek wonders if his family can overcome a lifetime of hate."

So why is this important? Well, let us talk about why and some scenes that are so important.

First, Some Scenes

1. American History X: the class Danny did not want to take

His history teacher gave up on him after he wrote an essay on Mein Kampf and talked about Hitler as a civil rights leader (which is something terrifying to think of something that could happen as a history education major). So Principal Sweeney took Danny into his own hands. He talked about how Danny would now come to his office each day and take part of a conversation about current events, he called the class American History X. His first assignment was to write an essay that analyzed and interpret his brother incarceration, as his brother was released that morning. Instead of suspending him, he gave him a second chance.

2. That one scene where Derek (Edward Norton) gives a rally speech about illegal immigrants before the neo-Nazi gang "rob" the grocery store run by Koreans

This was one of the most terrifying scenes in the movie, mostly because their hatred and the blame the neo-nazi gang put on "illegal immigrants" and people of other races for their life problems, is something that is still heard today. As my mom said while watching the movie, "Oh my god, I'm pretty sure Donald Trump used some in this speech in the past election." As I said: relevant and scary.

3. The dinner blow up: The Rodney King conversation and the physical violence against Derek's sister.

Derek used derogatory statements against his mother's Jewish boyfriend after a conversation about the Rodney King situation. Then he physically shoved meat down his sister's throat, which was powerful and is much better than I can explain.

4. Derek killing the African American man and then getting arrested

Derek kills the man so violently then as he is getting arrested he has no remorse. You can see it in his eyes. And Danny's reaction is so emotional and sad.

5. Danny realizing that if he testified, his brother would have gotten life in jail

Danny's idol was his brother. He wanted to be him, he wanted to follow his footsteps. When he wrote that sentence when writing his essay, he deleted it immediately. Knowing it was too much for him to even face.

6. Derek getting raped in jail - all because he sat at a different table one day and played basketball with the "Black convicts"

The rest of the neo-Nazis in jail jumped him in the shower, raped him, and banged his head against a wall, all because of not sitting with them and playing basketball.

7. Principal Sweeney visiting Derek in jail

He brought him books and comforted him after the attack. He talks about Derek's attitude and the reason he became a neo-nazi. Sweeney says, "You have to ask the right question... has anything you've done made your life better?" This made Derek realize he needed to change and stop the hatred he was carrying.

8. THE LAST SEVEN MINUTES

You got to watch it.

So now, important lessons learned and observations;

1. The inequality in the justice system that still exists today:

Lamont, an African American man stole a TV, which fell on the cop's foot and got six years. Derek killed someone violently and shot him and shot at a car in suburbia, which only got three years.

2. How one crazy old man with an agenda can make money and create a small army: Cameron prays on people

Cameron is the leader of the Nep-Nazi group. He was able to manipulate Derek into believing the Nazi ideology and created a small army of white supremacists. It is terrifying to think of someone having that much power over so many people who is so full of hatred and literally a nazi. He is able to talk to a group of young white people and make them believe in the negative ideology he has. Scary to think of that happening.

3. How much Derek wants to help Danny not make the same mistakes as him

He wanted to make sure Danny had a better chance and opportunities in life and doesn't end up in jail.

4. Sometimes, people need jail to be able to have an eye-opening: it can help and should help rehabilitate people.

And yet for Derek, it had nothing to do with the system, more to do with three people. Principal, Lamar, and himself and the want and need to change to better himself and his family.

5. How important and necessary it is to have teachers/ principals who don't give up on those "lost causes"

As a future teacher, this is important to me. Danny was literally brainwashed. He really didn't believe in the Nazi ideas like his brother or any of the other gang members. The principal saw that and believed that you could save those kids who had a hard life and have been seen as a lost cause. Kids are important to help and need someone to be on their side.

6. Prison affects a whole family, not just Derek

For three years Derek's family went without him and it took a toll. It was heartbreaking for his mother and his brother was more influence by negative influences/

7. Corruption in the prison

The guard literally let Derek get raped by the other "skinhead/neo-Nazis" in prison

9. Positivity is key

Lamont was in jail and it was very corrupt and unfair. Yet when working with Derek he was positive and tried to make Derek smile and make him in a conversation.

10. Hatred is powerful. Love is more powerful

In the world we live in today, this is such an important lesson. Hatred helps no one. It fosters violence and more pain in the world. Instead, make a positive impact and help the wolf instead of hurting it.

11. One person can change your life

Lamont literally saved Derek life and helped make sure he didn't get hurt/killed/or raped again after the dissing the other neo-Nazi people gang in jail. He helped Derek realize he needed to change.

12. Tattoos are permanent

Derek had a tattoo of the swastika on his chest. It is a symbol of hate he will carry with him now and his past. Although a small lesson in the whole scheme of this movie, it is something that took out to me.

13. One comment can change the course of someone's life.

All started of this started because Derek's dad (who died in the line of duty as a firefighter) made a comment about "It's everywhere I look now... this affirmative black shit." He then goes on to say how making everything equal is not that easy. He stated, "I have two black guys who got their job versus some white guys who scored higher. But now I have two guys who aren't as good and only got the job because they were black... Watch out for n***** bulls**." One conversation radicalizes him and in response his brother. Although not purposefully it changed their lives.

14. "Hate is baggage Life's too short to be pissed off all the time. It's just not worth it" -Danny

Enough said.

The fact that this movie didn't win an Oscar for best picture and Edward Norton didn't win best actor is honestly crazy. Reading the lessons and observations I made over again, I think how hate is overflowing in this world right now. How one man's comments have had such a negative impact on the world. How the justice system is corrupt, in many ways. How many people turn to violence to fight their frustration in their own life.

Sadly, I think this movie will continue to be relevant for a while. But that being said, it is important that everyone watches it and see for themselves the lessons and messages this movie has. Everyone should see it. Everyone needs to see it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Every Millennial Needs To Watch 'American History X'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
My mom has been telling me to watch "American History X" with her since I was roughly 16 years old. She said it was the most socially relevant movie she has ever seen. It came out in 1998. Finally, we got around to watching it.

# data[].attributes.body
Shows how seeds of white supremacy are planted. Discusses other violent acts against minorities. Ties to other hate groups.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
American History X film still

"We're losing our right to pursue our destiny," warns Derek Vinyard, a neo-Nazi leader played by Edward Norton, moments before he leads his skinhead brethren in to desecrate a Korean-owned grocery store in one of the film's most nauseating scenes. "We're losing our freedom," Derek reasons, and the "parasites" pouring in through our open borders are to blame. For the dejected white working class of the US, this rhetoric is far from fiction. Tony Kaye's 1998 film American History X gave us one of the first nuanced understandings of how the seeds of white supremacy are planted, which is why, 20 years after its release, it continues to resonate. Especially last week, when 11 people were killed during a morning Shabbat service at a synagogue in Pittsburgh, where two black people were killed in a grocery store in Kentucky, and when three men were convicted of plotting to bomb Somali refugees at a mosque in Kansas - all at the hands of white men.

On the eve of the 21st century, American History X provided a depiction of racism that was urgent, violent, and firmly rooted in its present day. The film came at a critical cultural moment, influenced by the rise of militant white supremacy groups - the Rodney King Riots and Oklahoma City bombings still weighing heavily on America. "Substantive treatments of neo-Nazi characters [in film] mirror the growth of neo-Nazi movements and the escalation of their violent rhetoric into highly publicized acts of terrorism in Europe and North America from the 1980s on," says Lawrence Baron, cultural historian and Professor Emeritus of Modern Jewish History at San Diego State University, whose work looks at neo-Nazis and holocaust iconography in modern American cinema.

The film is set in Venice Beach, California, where Derek's high school-aged younger brother Danny, played by Edward Furlong, is on the brink of expulsion from his high school for an idolatry paper he wrote on Mein Kampf. To avoid expulsion, Danny must write a paper for his history teacher, Mr. Murray, about his older brother Derek, a now former neo-Nazi, whom Mr. Murray taught and who has just been released from prison. As Danny attempts to write his paper that night, his recollections of Derek play as grainy, black-and-white flashbacks. They tell the story of Derek's radicalization in the wake of his father's death, when he was shot while putting out a fire in a traditionally black neighborhood, and the brutal revenge that Derek exacts. His violence lands him in jail, where he ends up renouncing his neo-Nazi ideology - a rejection that Derek is devoted to instill in his younger brother after his incarceration.

Overall, the film's central message is one of tolerance over tribalism. It shows us the story of grief turned to rage turned to redemption. The rage we see in this film is similar to the real life rage we see playing out on the news today, with blame being laid onto immigrants of color and other minorities for any and every national woe. To watch the raucous speeches of this film now is eerie for reasons that go beyond the narrative of the Vinyard brothers. It is these inherently racist sentiments that helped get Donald Trump elected, that have emboldened neo-Nazi groups to hold their rallies out in the open, and has radicalized the alt-right to the point of violence. In this regard, the movie is still a relevant, although rather imperfect, cultural text.

Prior to the 80s and 90s, depictions of neo-Nazi's were cartoonish, old-world villains in World War II era garb always brought down by good, honest men. American History X was groundbreaking because it dove into white supremacy as a belief system that existed and thrived in late-90s American suburbia, revealing the modern face of racism to a mainstream audience, instead of keeping the conversation trained on the 60s and the Civil Rights movement. The movie is frightening, suggestive of looming danger, evocative of the pre-Y2K paranoia of a dawning digital age, globalization and a changing cultural landscape of film that reflects reality rather than attempts to escape it.

"The issues uniting [neo-Nazis] are rooted in working class whites feeling culturally, economically, politically, and socially disenfranchised," says Baron. Presently, hate groups like Rise Above Movement, National Action and Vanguard America are rallying around these very causes in suburban neighborhoods globally. Everywhere from southern California to the UK (where a neo-Nazi organization, National Action, was banned as a terrorist organization following their celebration of the murder of MP Jo Cox by a white supremacist) to Germany (with recent neo-Nazi protests shaking up the country). The terror of the suburban neo-Nazi today is their propensity for camouflage, they do not wear costumes and they can be found in bars, in back to school meetings and shopping centers everywhere.

"The 'magical negro' is helping the white character get to a higher plane, helping them to become their authentic, best self, but that notion just feeds into the white savior complex that is permeating mass media today," says Harris."

"The scariest and most convincing scenes are the ones in which we see the skinheads bonding," said film critic Roger Ebert in his 1998 review of the film. "They're led by Derek's brilliant speechmaking and fueled by drugs, beer, tattoos, heavy metal, and the need all insecure people feel to belong to a movement greater than themselves."

American History X tells the most sinister neo-Nazi origin story of all: one that starts at the dinner table. "Many of these movies render their main characters victims of familial, political, or socioeconomic circumstance rather than as innately evil villains," says Baron.

The question of its relevance, though, cannot be answered without mentioning where the film falls short. The timeliness of American History X tapers off in its treatment of its black characters as banal conventions rather than fully fleshed-out people. Principle Bob Sweeney, who assigns Danny the titular paper, actively steps in to educate and change the course of both Derek and Danny's lives. Lamont, who works in the laundry room with Derek, not only protects him in prison (after the violent rape he experiences at the hand of a neo-Nazi leader) but teaches him the ways in which the criminal justice system fails people of color. In films like this "it is the despised 'other' who teaches the perpetrator tolerance," says Baron.

While the black characters are critical in advancing the plot of the film, they exist solely to show the white characters the error of their ways. This tendency in film to oversimplify and stereotype black characters has a longstanding history in cinema.

"This caricature of the 'magical negro' exists when African-American characters, who are positioned in the film as a central figure, are framed to have these almost magical powers to impart wisdom and knowledge to the white lead characters," says Tina Harris PhD, a Professor of Interracial Communications at University of Georgia. "The 'magical negro' is helping the white character get to a higher plane, helping them to become their authentic, best self, but that notion just feeds into the white savior complex that is permeating mass media today," says Harris.

"The film lacks accountability on the part of Derek and his followers to rectify their racism and violence, with many of the minorities and people of color in the film used as props to shock and horrify the onlooker."

The term, popularized by Spike Lee, is used time and time again as a way to absolve characters of their racist pasts. This tired cultural image reinforces stereotypes and, regardless of its intentions, romanticizes a post-racial society in which everyone can be forgiven and taught morality (with the burden of education remaining firmly on people of color). "All these tropes are quite troubling because they limit us to being one-dimensional, they make the African-American dream one-dimensional," says Harris. "We have so much more diversity than what is being shown in the media."

The film lacks accountability on the part of Derek and his followers to rectify their racism and violence, with many of the minorities and people of color in the film used as props to shock and horrify the onlooker. Derek slings anti-semitic slurs at his mother's suitor over dinner, the neo-Nazis pour salsa into the mouth of a grocery store worker and then there is the infamous, revolting curb stomp scene in which Derek crushes the skull of the black teen who attempts to steal his truck. The horror of the film sticks with you long after the screen cuts to black.

The unintended consequences of Derek and the D.O.C's terrifying reign over their changing neighborhood is that where some of the film's audience saw a message of warning, others saw a rallying cry. In the disturbing scene for which the film is best known, Derek walks into the street in nothing but his crisp white boxers, Swastika displayed prominently on his muscled chest. He is inarguably a force to be reckoned with, which meant that some people saw him a role model to emulate, rather than a villain to detest. "The overt message is one of tolerance," says Baron "but the character Ed Norton plays is so romanticized physically, and just such a charismatic figure compared to any other character in the film. There is a sort of subtext that can be easily latched on to: 'he is the hero, he is the guy who does what you are supposed to do', and it actually inspired someone to do the exact same thing in Germany." In 2002 three neo-Nazis in the town of Potzlow, in what was formerly East Germany, crushed a man's skull because he 'looked like a Jew,' emulating the curb kick from American History X.

The film, despite these serious flaws, did shed new light on white supremacy and helped start a vital conversation. While Derek's rhetoric may have challenged 1998 audiences to imagine how white nationalism could invade their suburban neighborhoods, his racist vitriol and xenophobia are familiar talking points of America's reigning political party in 2018.

Presently, we have known neo-Nazi Arthur Jones running for congress on the Republican ticket in Illinois, we have white supremacist Richard Spencer making speeches at universities and we have Donald J. Trump peddling false information about the migrant caravan of Central American asylum seekers heading to the US border. In many ways American History X was not a premonition of what was to come - it was a snapshot of what has always existed in this country.
This article originally appeared on i-D UK.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
20 years later, is 'american history x' outdated or more relevant than ever?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
American History X film still "We're losing our right to pursue our destiny," warns Derek Vinyard, a neo-Nazi leader played by Edward Norton, moments before he leads his skinhead brethren in to desecrate a Korean-owned grocery store in one of the film's most nauseating scenes.

# data[].attributes.body
This film's ability to change Norton is important. He is a great actor and it changed how he felt. It gave him the opportunity to teach lessons on anger.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Rich Fury/Getty Images

Edward Norton may shy away from the spotlight, but despite his discomfort with fame and attention, he's one of the most important actors of his generation. He's appeared in films like Fight Club, Birdman, The Italian Job, and The Grand Budapest Hotel, and he's also worked behind the camera, directing the films Keeping the Faith and Motherless Brooklyn.

In 1996, Norton's performance in Primal Fear established him as one to watch, but it was his 1998 starring role as a former neo-Nazi trying to turn his life around in American History X that truly showcased the range of his talents. In American History X, Norton played Derek Vinyard, a white supremacist who abandons his ideology after spending time in prison, and then tries to prevent his younger brother, Danny (Edward Furlong), from following in his footsteps.

After starring in such a powerful film - and having to deal with some unexpected obstacles in the process - Norton was deeply affected by the experience. Here's why Edward Norton was never the same after American History X and how working on the film changed him as an artist and a human being.

Drama behind the scenes of American History X

Astrid Stawiarz/Getty Images

It's rare that an actor has to step in and edit a film that they star in, but that's exactly what happened to Norton. Why? Well, the making of American History X was almost as controversial as the film itself.

In the midst of the editing process, director Tony Kaye got into serious disagreements with the production company, New Line Cinema, over his ideas for the final cut of the film. Kaye had previously worked as an advertising director, and his experience in that industry was affecting his editing decisions. The film's screenwriter, David McKenna, said that Kaye was making the movie look "like a commercial." In order to salvage the film, Norton stepped in and began working with Kaye, but the two butted heads constantly. However, many of Norton's cuts did make the final version of the movie. It was a new experience for Norton, but since then, he's only officially worked on editing one of his films, Down in the Valley.

The film gave Edward Norton a tough reputation

After filming wrapped on American History X, director Tony Kaye was very bitter towards Norton, and he wasn't shy about letting the media know. Norton's creative decisions infuriated Kaye, who tried to completely dissociate himself from the movie and called Norton a "buffoon." Even after the film was released, Kaye never let the editing debacle blow over. His backlash to Norton's final cut of the film gave the actor a reputation as a "difficult" actor to work with - an artist who cared more about his own screen time than the quality of the film or cooperating with the cast and crew.

But Norton objects to that characterization. He's aware that some people think he's tough to work with, but he would just say that he's exceptionally dedicated to his art. "Difficult is really a question of semantics. You can use that word or you can say rigorous, committed, you can put it other ways," Norton told The Telegraph. "And I'll tell you a very true thing. None of what I would call the genuine talents I've worked with - directors - have ever called me difficult."

American History X was a major challenge for Norton

Ernesto S. Ruscio/Getty Images

Norton works hard, but he also finds joy in his work. In fact, he often discusses how much fun he's had on the sets of his most famous films, even if the subject matter was serious. But American History X pushed him like none of his other roles had before.

"Making American History X was really hard," Norton said in an interview with Dan Rather. "It was - it was a guerrilla kind of experience."

This was partially because Norton had to go through a pronounced physical transformation. He had to put in some serious hours at the gym in order to play Derek convincingly. He also had to play a character who could make anyone's skin crawl in a way that would eventually prompt audiences to empathize with him. And, of course, even when filming was over, he unexpectedly had to take the helm during the editing process. It all added up to a bigger challenge than he was anticipating.

He had to become more vulnerable

Edward Norton brought a certain vulnerability to a character who could've been viewed as entirely unsympathetic. He didn't want to play Derek as a caricature of evil. Instead, he wanted to reveal his flaws and weaknesses. And he didn't want the most important moments of the film to be violent scenes (although they were undeniably jarring). Instead, he hoped that viewers would also remember the moments when Derek had to face himself and who he'd become before making the decision to change.

"The capacity to hit vulnerable moments defines really good actors, for me," Norton told The Guardian. "Some parts you do from the outside in. ... But sometimes you have to go more in the other direction. Get inside someone's head." In real life, Norton would find someone like Derek abhorrent. But for this role, he had to step into his shoes and get out of his comfort zone as an artist.

He wanted to teach some lessons about anger

Vittorio Zunino Celotto/Getty Images

By the time the film was finished, Edward Norton was satisfied with Derek's storyline in the film. He wanted audiences to see the consequences of giving into anger and allowing it to take over. Anger and rage have the power to blind someone to the real impact of their actions, and this was a lesson that Derek had to learn. It wasn't until he was the target of violence and abuse in prison that he could really begin to see how his hatred had led him astray.

"For me, it gives a pretty unequivocal message about letting rage control your life," Norton told The Guardian. "I would have been much less comfortable if on any level he had got away with it." If Derek had managed to avoid dealing with his own karma, Norton felt that the film would not be as powerful. Instead, Derek had to accept that he had inflicted pain and suffering on others, and then make a conscious choice to help his brother avoid going down the same path.

The movie helped Norton make an impact

Norton was never too concerned about outperforming other films at the box office. He wasn't in it for the awards or the money. Instead, he wanted to be a part of films that made a real cultural impact. For Norton, American History X is an important part of his legacy. He'd already established himself as an exceptionally talented actor with his role as Aaron Stampler in Primal Fear (which earned him his first Academy Award nomination), but he feels that American History X was the first movie he appeared in that offered serious cultural commentary.

"A lot of films are more successful financially than Fight Club or American History X, but those films meant more to people and continue to," Norton told Slash Film. "To me, if I can make a couple of films that, looking back, people say, 'Yeah, that's what our generation felt like at that moment. That's a good document,' then I'm content."

It helped him focus on movies outside the mainstream

Emma Mcintyre/Getty Images

When it first hit theaters, American History X only made about $6.7 million at the domestic box office (for a worldwide total of about $24 million). That didn't seems like much to the cast and crew at the time, but shortly after it was released on video, the film became one of the most popular rentals at Blockbuster. And today, Norton is a huge fan of Netflix because he knows that it can be hard for a film to succeed through mainstream avenues. He wants filmmakers to have new platforms for distribution so that they can reach wider audiences and promote films that might not rake in huge profits at the box office.

"I think there's more ways to get a movie made today than ever in the history of the entertainment industry," he told The A.V. Club, adding, "You can't stake your sense of creative success on this whole box-office-performance matrix." He believes that the gatekeepers of the industry aren't always right about which films will make a real impact, and his experience with American History X taught him to look beyond the money.

American History X changed how people perceived him

To play Derek, Norton had to bulk up. Before filming began, Norton committed to an intense workout regimen and started incorporating more protein into his diet to build muscle and tone. And after the film was released, he was surprised by how it affected his self image. People suddenly viewed him as much bigger and stronger than he was in real life, and he realized just how much the camera could warp perspectives.

"Doing that film created the strangest distortion of perception on me," Norton said during an interview on The Tim Ferris Show. He explained, "It's unbelievable, the degree to which that film and the magic of camera and art and black and white photography and all these things made a lot of people think that I was a larger and tougher person than I am." Norton had to process the fact that after American History X came out, people were seeing him very differently than he saw himself. After all, he definitely didn't picture himself as intimidating as his character.

The film helped him learn more about prejudice

Brian Ach/Getty Images

While working on the film, Norton had to engage with the history of racism in America and understand why some people still turned to white supremacist groups, even though the major civil rights battles had already been won decades before. It's a complex topic, and Norton learned about the economic, social, and political factors that might push someone down this path.

At the time the film was released, Norton viewed it as a specifically American story, reflecting on why young, white men in particular were attracted to these extremist groups. However, he did acknowledge that many of the themes explored in the film would be relevant in other cultures, as well. "In America, racism is much more a gang phenomenon, growing out of a need for a sense of belonging. It does not have the political underpinnings it seems to have in Europe. So I felt like it was an American tragedy," Norton told The Guardian. "But within that particular setting, it is universal."

The movie gave Norton nuanced perspective

Gareth Cattermole/Getty Images

In American History X, Derek goes through a dramatic change as the narrative progresses. "That's the challenge of a role like that, or the appeal of it for me, is not even so much just the one very extreme manifestation of this guy, but more the emotional distance that he travels," Norton said.

Norton explained that it was already very difficult to understand the mindset of a deeply prejudiced skinhead, but his real achievement was conveying the inner journey of the character and his gradual shift in perspective. He wasn't just responsible for conveying Derek's hatred - he also had to express his eventual willingness to be open-minded, his compassion for his brother, and his pain at the film's somber conclusion.

"In this film you're forced to confront the complexity of the character and his tragedy," Norton told The Guardian. The character of Derek pushed audiences to think critically, and playing him forced Norton to do the same.

American History X and looking within

Jerod Harris/Getty Images

Edward Norton knew that audiences would probably react to Derek with disgust. But Norton didn't want viewers to criticize Derek without taking a hard look at themselves, too.

One of the messages he hoped that people would take home from American History X was the fact that anyone can harbor prejudice, and patting ourselves on the back for being open-minded wasn't enough to tackle bigotry. Norton aimed to show viewers that with the right circumstances, anyone can give in to this mindset, and we all have a responsibility to ask ourselves how can contribute to positive change. After all, Derek wasn't born a white supremacist. This behavior was learned, and his brother followed in his footsteps.

"An all-too-common reaction to something like racism is to hate the act so much you dismiss the person," said Norton, adding, "People don't want to recognize, that someone like him can come out of a normal middle-class home."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Edward Norton was never the same after American History X

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After starring in American History X - and having to deal with some unexpected obstacles in the process - Edward Norton was deeply affected by the experience. Here's why the actor was never the same after American History X and how working on the film changed him as an artist and a human being.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ed Norton Details about American History X

# data[].attributes.subject
Ed Norton Details about American History X

# data[].attributes.body
This is very important because Norton was very interested in this film. This source shows some details about the film. It also discusses some key interactions between him and Lamont.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Edward Norton Details What a Current 'American History X' Would Look Like

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Edward Norton talks about the Greek tragedy elements of 'American History X,' the film's lasting effect on audiences, and its current relevance.

# data[].attributes.body
Lamont was a major part of Derek getting out of prison alive. He was a huge part of Derek's transformation away from the white supremacy lifestyle. He was imperative to the story.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Missouri-born Guy Torry is best known for playing the friendly prison workmate, Lamont -- who creates an important bond while folding bedding and penitentiary drawers -- in the 1998 film, "American History X."

Guy Torry was cast alongside Edward Norton who received an Academy Award nomination for Best Actor for his work as the white supremacist, Derek Vinyard ... who is ultimately protected by Lamont after he changes his ways in Chino prison.

Fun Fact: Guy's older brother is comedian Joe Torry who's most notably Chicago in "Poetic Justice" and Stack in "Tales From The Hood."

Guess what he looks like now!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lamont in 'American History X' 'Memba Him?!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Missouri-born Guy Torry is best known for playing the friendly prison workmate, Lamont -- who creates an important bond while folding bedding and penitentiary drawers -- in the 1998 film, "American History X." Guy Torry was cast alongside Edward Norton who received an Academy Award nomination for Best Actor for his work as the white supremacist, Derek Vinyard ...

# data[].attributes.body
DJT shows support for Neo-Nazis in the unite the right rally. He uses the quote "fine people on both sides." This is clearly dismisses the validity of the protesters against the neo-nazis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On Aug. 15, 2017, President Donald Trump held a press conference to discuss an executive order he had signed on infrastructure permitting. Reporters shortly began asking questions about Trump's initial response to violent protests in Charlottesville, Va. It was at this press conference that Trump said that "you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides."

On April 25, 2019, former Vice President Joe Biden declared his 2020 candidacy for the Democratic nomination and the presidency by recalling the events in Charlottesville and Trump's comments. "With those words, the president of the United States assigned a moral equivalence between those spreading hate and those with the courage to stand against it," Biden said.

The next day, Trump responded, saying "If you look at what I said, you will see that that question was answered perfectly. And I was talking about people that went because they felt very strongly about the monument to Robert E. Lee, a great general. Whether you like it or not, he was one of the great generals." Trump also said he would defeat Biden "very easily."

We wanted to look at Trump's comments in their original context. Here is a transcript of the questions Trump answered that addressed the Charlottesville controversy in the days after it happened. (His specific remarks about "very fine people, on both sides" come in the final third of the transcript.)

* * *

Reporter: "Let me ask you, Mr. President, why did you wait so long to blast neo-Nazis?"

Trump: "I didn't wait long. I didn't wait long."

Reporter: "Forty-eight hours."

Trump: "I wanted to make sure, unlike most politicians, that what I said was correct -- not make a quick statement. The statement I made on Saturday, the first statement, was a fine statement. But you don't make statements that direct unless you know the facts. It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don't know the facts. And it's a very, very important process to me, and it's a very important statement.

"So I don't want to go quickly and just make a statement for the sake of making a political statement. I want to know the facts. If you go back to --

Reporter: "So you had to (inaudible) white supremacists?"

Trump: "I brought it. I brought it. I brought it."

Reporter: "Was it terrorism, in your opinion, what happened?"

Trump: "As I said on -- remember, Saturday -- we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America. And then it went on from there. Now, here's the thing --"

Reporter: (Inaudible)

Trump: "Excuse me. Excuse me. Take it nice and easy. Here's the thing: When I make a statement, I like to be correct. I want the facts. This event just happened. In fact, a lot of the event didn't even happen yet, as we were speaking. This event just happened.

"Before I make a statement, I need the facts. So I don't want to rush into a statement. So making the statement when I made it was excellent. In fact, the young woman, who I hear was a fantastic young woman, and it was on NBC -- her mother wrote me and said through, I guess, Twitter, social media, the nicest things. And I very much appreciated that. I hear she was a fine -- really, actually, an incredible young woman. But her mother, on Twitter, thanked me for what I said.

"And honestly, if the press were not fake, and if it was honest, the press would have said what I said was very nice. But unlike you, and unlike -- excuse me, unlike you and unlike the media, before I make a statement, I like to know the facts."

(crosstalk)

Reporter: "The CEO of Walmart said you missed a critical opportunity to help bring the country together. Did you?"

Trump: "Not at all. I think the country -- look, you take a look. I've created over a million jobs since I'm President. The country is booming. The stock market is setting records. We have the highest employment numbers we've ever had in the history of our country. We're doing record business. We have the highest levels of enthusiasm. So the head of Walmart, who I know -- who's a very nice guy -- was making a political statement. I mean -- I'd do it the same way. And you know why? Because I want to make sure, when I make a statement, that the statement is correct. And there was no way -- there was no way of making a correct statement that early. I had to see the facts, unlike a lot of reporters. Unlike a lot of reporters --

Reporter: "Nazis were there."

Reporter: "David Duke was there."

Trump: "I didn't know David Duke was there. I wanted to see the facts. And the facts, as they started coming out, were very well stated. In fact, everybody said, 'His statement was beautiful. If he would have made it sooner, that would have been good.' I couldn't have made it sooner because I didn't know all of the facts. Frankly, people still don't know all of the facts.

"It was very important -- excuse me, excuse me -- it was very important to me to get the facts out and correctly. Because if I would have made a fast statement -- and the first statement was made without knowing much, other than what we were seeing. The second statement was made after, with knowledge, with great knowledge. There are still things -- excuse me -- there are still things that people don't know. I want to make a statement with knowledge. I wanted to know the facts."

Reporter: "Two questions. Was this terrorism? And can you tell us how you're feeling about your chief strategist, Stephen Bannon?"

Trump: "Well, I think the driver of the car is a disgrace to himself, his family, and this country. And that is -- you can call it terrorism. You can call it murder. You can call it whatever you want. I would just call it as the fastest one to come up with a good verdict. That's what I'd call it. Because there is a question: Is it murder? Is it terrorism? And then you get into legal semantics. The driver of the car is a murderer. And what he did was a horrible, horrible, inexcusable thing.

(crosstalk)

Reporter: "Can you tell us broadly what your -- do you still have confidence in Steve?"

Trump: "Well, we'll see. Look, look -- I like Mr. Bannon. He's a friend of mine. But Mr. Bannon came on very late. You know that. I went through 17 senators, governors, and I won all the primaries. Mr. Bannon came on very much later than that. And I like him, he's a good man. He is not a racist, I can tell you that. He's a good person. He actually gets very unfair press in that regard. But we'll see what happens with Mr. Bannon. But he's a good person, and I think the press treats him, frankly, very unfairly."

(crosstalk)

Reporter: "Sen. (John) McCain said that the alt-right is behind these attacks, and he linked that same group to those who perpetrated the attack in Charlottesville."

Trump: "Well, I don't know. I can't tell you. I'm sure Senator McCain must know what he's talking about. But when you say the alt-right, define alt-right to me. You define it. Go ahead."

Reporter: "Well, I'm saying, as Senator --"

Trump: "No, define it for me. Come on, let's go. Define it for me."

Reporter: "Senator McCain defined them as the same group --"

Trump: "Okay, what about the alt-left that came charging at -- excuse me, what about the alt-left that came charging at the, as you say, the alt-right? Do they have any semblance of guilt?

"Let me ask you this: What about the fact that they came charging with clubs in their hands, swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do. As far as I'm concerned, that was a horrible, horrible day. Wait a minute. I'm not finished. I'm not finished, fake news. That was a horrible day --

" I will tell you something. I watched those very closely -- much more closely than you people watched it. And you have -- you had a group on one side that was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that, but I'll say it right now. You had a group -- you had a group on the other side that came charging in, without a permit, and they were very, very violent."

Reporter: "Do you think that what you call the alt-left is the same as neo-Nazis?"

Trump: "Those people -- all of those people - excuse me, I've condemned neo-Nazis. I've condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee."

Reporter: "Should that statue be taken down?"

Trump: "Excuse me. If you take a look at some of the groups, and you see -- and you'd know it if you were honest reporters, which in many cases you're not -- but many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee.

"So this week it's Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?

"But they were there to protest -- excuse me, if you take a look, the night before they were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. Infrastructure question. Go ahead."

Reporter: "Should the statues of Robert E. Lee stay up?"

Trump: "I would say that's up to a local town, community, or the federal government, depending on where it is located."

Reporter: "How concerned are you about race relations in America? And do you think things have gotten worse or better since you took office?"

Trump: "I think they've gotten better or the same. Look, they've been frayed for a long time. And you can ask President Obama about that, because he'd make speeches about it. But I believe that the fact that I brought in -- it will be soon -- millions of jobs -- you see where companies are moving back into our country -- I think that's going to have a tremendous, positive impact on race relations.

"We have companies coming back into our country. We have two car companies that just announced. We have Foxconn in Wisconsin just announced. We have many companies, I say, pouring back into the country. I think that's going to have a huge, positive impact on race relations. You know why? It's jobs. What people want now, they want jobs. They want great jobs with good pay, and when they have that, you watch how race relations will be.

"And I'll tell you, we're spending a lot of money on the inner cities. We're fixing the inner cities. We're doing far more than anybody has done with respect to the inner cities. It's a priority for me, and it's very important."

Reporter: "Mr. President, are you putting what you're calling the alt-left and white supremacists on the same moral plane?"

Trump: "I'm not putting anybody on a moral plane. What I'm saying is this: You had a group on one side and you had a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs -- and it was vicious and it was horrible. And it was a horrible thing to watch.

"But there is another side. There was a group on this side. You can call them the left -- you just called them the left -- that came violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that's the way it is.

Reporter: (Inaudible) "... both sides, sir. You said there was hatred, there was violence on both sides. Are the --"

Trump: "Yes, I think there's blame on both sides. If you look at both sides -- I think there's blame on both sides. And I have no doubt about it, and you don't have any doubt about it either. And if you reported it accurately, you would say."

Reporter: "The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest --"

Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn't put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."

Reporter: "George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same."

Trump: "George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down -- excuse me, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him?"

Reporter: "I do love Thomas Jefferson."

Trump: "Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue?

"So you know what, it's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture. And you had people -- and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.

"Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

Reporter: "Sir, I just didn't understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly? I just don't understand what you were saying."

Trump: "No, no. There were people in that rally -- and I looked the night before -- if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I'm sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people -- neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them.

"But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest, and very legally protest -- because, I don't know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn't have a permit. So I only tell you this: There are two sides to a story. I thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country -- a horrible moment. But there are two sides to the country.

"Does anybody have a final --

Reporter: "What makes you think you can get an infrastructure bill? You didn't get health care --

Trump: "Well, you know, I'll tell you. We came very close with health care. Unfortunately, John McCain decided to vote against it at the last minute. You'll have to ask John McCain why he did that. But we came very close to health care. We will end up getting health care. But we'll get the infrastructure. And actually, infrastructure is something that I think we'll have bipartisan support on. I actually think Democrats will go along with the infrastructure."

Reporter: "Mr. President, have you spoken to the family of the victim of the car attack?"

Trump: "No, I'll be reaching out. I'll be reaching out."

Reporter: "When will you be reaching out?"

Trump: "I thought that the statement put out -- the mother's statement I thought was a beautiful statement. I will tell you, it was something that I really appreciated. I thought it was terrific. And, really, under the kind of stress that she's under and the heartache that she's under, I thought putting out that statement, to me, was really something. I won't forget it.

"Thank you, all, very much. Thank you. Thank you."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In Context: Trump's 'very fine people on both sides' remarks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On Aug. 15, 2017, President Donald Trump held a press conference to discuss an executive order he had signed on infrastructure permitting. Reporters shortly began asking questions about Trump's initial response to violent protests in Charlottesville, Va. It was at this press conference that Trump said that

# data[].attributes.body
This twitter account has a plethora of astounding comments. His page is full of sometimes subtle and not so subtle jabs at political opponents. This is important for the radicalization of the right against democrats and liberals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
Tweets by realDonaldTrump

# data[].attributes.body
I want to discuss the rise of Alt-right in the US. This murder was committed against a protester against the Rally. Also, Donald Trump's famous "both sides" quote is paramount for the paper.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A man with neo-Nazi beliefs whose brazen assault on counterprotesters of a "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, last year was found guilty Friday of first-degree murder.

James Alex Fields, Jr. plowed his 2010 Dodge Challenger into the crowd, killing 32-year-old paralegal Heather Heyer. A jury in Charlottesville deliberated for seven hours before convicting Fields, 21, a Nazi sympathizer from Maumee, Ohio.

The jury also found Fields guilty of five counts of aggravated malicious wounding, three of malicious wounding, and one hit-and-run count. In all, 35 other people were wounded in the Aug. 12, 2017 assault, which brought national attention and heightened tension between right-leaning activists and their critics.

Fields' mother, Samantha Bloom, and Heyer's mother, Susan Bro, were both in the courtroom when the verdicts were read. But both left without comment. Fields, wearing glasses and a light blue sweater, showed no emotion as the verdicts were announced.

He faces 20 years to life in prison for the murder charge. Sentencing is expected to begin Monday, when Bro and eight victims of the attack will provide testimony.

A woman who was injured in the assault but survived said the verdict has made her feel "the best I've been in a year-and-a-half." Other victims embraced Heyer's mother immediately after the verdict.

White nationalist Richard Spencer called the verdict a "miscarriage of justice" and said Fields "was treated as a terrorist from the get-go." Spencer questioned whether Fields could get a fair trial since the case was so emotional.

Spencer popularized the term "alt-right" to describe a fringe movement loosely mixing white nationalism, anti-Semitism and other far-right extremist views. He said he doesn't feel any personal responsibility for the violence that erupted in Charlottesville.

About a dozen civil rights activists who were outside the courthouse chanted in unison after the verdict that white nationalists "will not replace us."

It was a revised version of slurs shouted by white-supremacist-rally participants in 2017 who yelled "Jews will not replace us."

Charlottesville civil rights activist Tanesha Hudson said she attended the rally and saw the violence that day. She said she sees the guilty verdict as the city's way of saying, "We will not tolerate this in our city." She says Charlottesville residents "don't stand for this type of hate."

As jury selection in the trial got underway earlier this week, Fields' attorney John Hill told a group of prospective jurors that Fields was in a panicked state during the attack and "thought he was acting in self-defense."

Fields has also been charged with 30 federal counts of hate crimes, which could result in the death penalty. That trial has not been scheduled. He has pleaded not guilty.

Federal prosecutors described Fields as a Nazi sympathizer who has advocated violence against blacks and Jews on social media and who participated in chants promoting white supremacy and racist views during the Unite the Right rally, held to protest the planned removal of a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee.

The indictment said that after the rally was dispersed, Fields drove to where the counterprotest was taking place in downtown Charlottesville and backed up to the top of a hill.

"Fields then rapidly accelerated, ran through a stop sign and across a raised pedestrian mall, and drove directly into the crowd, striking numerous individuals, killing Heather Heyer, and injuring many others,'' the indictment said. "Fields' vehicle stopped only when it struck another vehicle ... He then rapidly reversed his vehicle and fled the scene.''
'Stop hating': One year after Charlottesville, mom talks about daughter's death
After the incident, President Donald Trump inflamed racial tensions when he said "both sides" were to blame, a comment some saw as a refusal to condemn racism.

Heyer's mother has become an outspoken activist and is determined to keep her daughter's passion alive. Bro now runs the Heather Heyer Foundation, which awards scholarships to students who are passionate about social justice.

"I turned my attention to carrying forth her message," she told USA TODAY in August. "You don't get to silence my kid and get away with it. I'm going to speak even louder."
CONTRIBUTING: Associated Press

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Neo-Nazi convicted of murder in Charlottesville car assault that killed Heather Heyer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A man with neo-Nazi beliefs whose brazen assault on counterprotesters of a "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, last year was found guilty Friday of first-degree murder. James Alex Fields, Jr. plowed his 2010 Dodge Challenger into the crowd, killing 32-year-old paralegal Heather Heyer.

# data[].attributes.body
Quote about neighborhood is very relevant because of anti-immigration groups. This will be used to talk about scapegoating of immigrants. I will also discuss former Us Congressman Tom Tancredo's stance on multiculturalism.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"This isn't our fuckin' neighborhood. It's a battlefield. We're on a battlefield tonight. Make a decision: Are we gonna stand on the sidelines, quietly standing there while our country gets raped? Or are we gonna ante up and do something about it?" -Derek Vinyard, American History X

"We will never be able to win in the clash of civilizations if we don't know who we are. If Western civilization succumbs to the siren song of multiculturalism, I believe we are finished." -former U.S. congressman and presidential candidate Tom Tancredo

Early in his tenure as attorney general, Eric Holder got into hot water for a Black History Month speech in which he referred to America as "a nation of cowards" when it comes to racial issues. The way he was blasted for his comments in some corners-a task made much easier by removing the quote from context-ironically underlined his point: We could bicker over Holder's perceived lapse in patriotism while continuing to dodge the difficult conversation he wants us to have. In truth, race comes up in the culture all the time-and by Holder's admission, in political discussion-but in language that's more coded than frank, and that doesn't necessarily cut to the heart of the matter. It's the third rail of American discourse.

For all its flaws-and they are legion-Tony Kaye's 1998 firecracker American History X could never be condemned for its lack of candor on racial matters. Until looking at it again for this column, I hadn't seen the film since its brief theatrical run, which was short-circuited in part due to the public battles between Kaye, his star Edward Norton, and New Line Cinema over the final cut. (Kaye famously took out a full-page ad in Variety decrying the Norton-supervised cut that New Line favored, and tried to have his name removed from the credits and replaced with the "Alan Smithee" pseudonym. When that failed, he suggested "Humpty Dumpty.") In the years since, I've tried to account for why American History X took off in the culture, and made a few assumptions: that Edward Norton's performance as reformed skinhead Derek Vinyard was too magnetic to deny; that the existence of a neo-Nazi group in a modern American city had a pulpy appeal, like the gangs in The Warriors or the anarchists in Fight Club; or that its most sensationalistic scene-the "curb-stomp"-was one of those you-must-see-this moments that lead people to pass around DVDs and videotapes.

No doubt all those elements were contributing factors, but I think the cult of American History X, for better or worse, has to do with its frankness. This is not a subtle film. This is not a film of great depth or psychological complexity. This is not a film with any discernible subtext; it's all text. But it does engage, albeit in the bluntest possible terms, in the kind of open conversation that Holder seems to be endorsing. Derek's path from scared kid to charismatic neo-Nazi leader to changed man follows such a clear cause-and-effect pattern that the audience in the theater next door can follow it, but there's a power to that, too. The racial discussion isn't couched in code words or other niceties of language, but stated so plainly that we can't wriggle out from under it. And it happens around the dinner table-sometimes literally, as in this scene where Derek aggressively confronts his mother's liberal new boyfriend (Elliott Gould) over the rioting and looting after the Rodney King trial. Note how closely Derek's argument dovetails with those of mainstream critics who condemned looting in the aftermath of Katrina or the fall of Baghdad:

"Who would like some dessert?" says Derek's mother (Beverly D'Angelo), trying to play peacemaker, and yet the conversation continues. American History X just keeps on talking, at least when Kaye isn't going overboard with slo-mo shower jets and other visual "poetry." David McKenna's script is loaded with pungent monologues and combustible melodrama, but even its structure does a lot of explaining, piling on long flashback sequences to account for Derek's journey and his influence on his brother Danny, played by Edward Furlong. The title refers to an essay Danny's principal, Dr. Sweeney (Avery Brooks), requires him to write after turning in a book report hailing the virtues of Mein Kampf. Sweeney wants Danny to write simply about his brother Derek-and within those broad parameters, a movie (with scads of voiceover narration) is born.

As Danny writes, his brother has served out the end of a three-year stint at Chino for voluntary manslaughter, having killed two African-Americans in response to an attempted car robbery outside his home in Venice Beach. In the years since he's been in prison, Derek's white-supremacist views have calcified in Danny's mind, too, and the skinhead movement in Venice has flourished in his absence. We learn the roots of Derek's racial hatred: How his father, a fireman with prejudices of his own, was gunned down by a black man. How his grief and anger were stoked by a local white-power nut (Stacy Keach) who recognized Derek's charisma and persuasiveness. How Derek was able to seize upon the sense of disenfranchisement felt by many in his racially evolving neighborhood. And how, finally, his rhetoric manifested itself in horrific violence. In this scene, Derek masterfully spins a rant on immigration into a pep talk for ransacking a Korean grocer:

Kaye, who also served as cinematographer, shoots in black and white and color, which for practical purposes helps situate viewers in time, but also suggests ways of seeing the world. The Derek of the past sees things starkly; Derek post-incarceration has a more nuanced perspective. But no matter where it stands in the timeline, American History X is strictly black and white. It's not just that the script leaves no room for interpretation, but that its dramatic transformations are rarely all that plausible, especially in the scenes with Derek in Chino. It makes sense that his disenchantment with his Aryan prison buddies starts with his observing their hypocrisy in moving drugs through Mexican gang members. But Derek's relationship with a black inmate (Guy Torry) on laundry detail is pure hooey, staking Derek's hasty transformation on a handful of genial exchanges and a story about the racial injustice that led the inmate into the pen. Reforming a hardened neo-Nazi like Derek-who isn't a sheep-like follower of racist dogma, but a confident proselytizer of it-would take a hell of a lot more than some disarming jokes over the folding press. (For a better example, look to The Believer, a superior film that turns to a much more profound source for conversion.)

Though overwrought and rigged like a Lifetime movie, American History X has a primal force that owes plenty to Norton's performance, of course, but also to Kaye's interest in American culture at its most extreme. It's always fascinating when a foreign filmmaker comes to America, because their impressions are unique and telling, even when they're off-base or marred by awkward hiccups. (Think Michelangelo Antonioni's Zabriskie Point, Bruno Dumont's Twentynine Palms, or Wim Wenders' various efforts here-none of them perfect by any measure, but they're singular and resonant even in their misjudgments.) Kaye is drawn to the violent fringe of American society: His extraordinary 2006 documentary Lake Of Fire, an epic (and startlingly graphic) look at the war over abortion rights, sought out the most dangerous zealot on the scene, including one man who would later be convicted for murdering a doctor. The racially charged world of American History X is amplified a few notches above the real one, often to the film's detriment, but Kaye's in-your-face style does force viewers to confront tensions that tend to simmer more frequently than they explode. There's a hyper-real, almost comic-book quality to Derek whipping off his shirt for a basketball game, ready to do battle against his African-American foes, wearing that Nazi tattoo emblazoned above his heart. And his eventual victory is pure ecstatic fantasy, like the anti- Hoosiers.

Such a scene seems unlikely right out in the open, on a public court in the middle of a big city, but this is a film that wants to have that uncomfortable dinner conversation. Much of the language Derek uses to persuade his skinhead followers and debate his adversaries is merely an n-word or two away from a modern talking head on cable news. And at a time when the presence of a black president has brought out insidious sloganeering like "Take our country back"-who's "our"? And from whom?-there's something refreshing about a film like American History X that puts everything on the table. It doesn't make for convincing cinema, exactly, but cowardly it isn't.

Attention Chicagoans: On Wednesday, July 28 th at 7:30 p.m., the New Cult Canon comes to the Music Box Theatre with a screening of David Lynch's . I'll be there to introduce the film and lead a discussion afterward. Three reasons to come:

1. It's a revelation on the big screen, shot in luscious Panavision with a particularly aggressive Lynch sound design.

2. It's better than you remember it being, especially in the wake of Mulholland Dr.

3. If you show up in strong numbers, perhaps such an event could be replicated in the future.

Advance tickets are available here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"This isn't our fuckin' neighborhood. It's a battlefield. We're on a battlefield tonight. Make a decision: Are we gonna stand on the sidelines, quietly standing there while our country gets raped? Or are we gonna ante up and do something about it?" -Derek Vinyard, American History X

# data[].attributes.body
This article ties the movie to statements made by Donald Trump. This will be important for discussing the rise of white supremacy in America. The movie quotes about border security mirrors Donald Trumps.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Two decades ago, American History X brought to life the ugly realities of white supremacy. Never before had moviegoers seen the horrifying minutiae of Neo-Nazi skinhead culture -- flowing blood and cracking bone, the hypocrisy, the devotion to hate, the difficult journey of leaving hate for good. It was billed as a "message" picture that showed how adherents to this horrifying ideology might leave that life behind. That they might even work toward redemption.

Today, the hate that American History X tried to explore as a cautionary tale of sorts is part of establishment political discourse. The film deeply underestimated the extent to which hate can infect, spread, and achieve widespread influence in American culture. That underestimation reflects our current ignorance of the origins of hate, of how hate can be combated, and suggests that greater awareness might ease its grip on our society.

"I don't think anyone watching American History X in the nineties thought its white supremacist characters would ever become mainstream," says Heidi Beirich, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center. "In the nineties, these views were way outside the mainstream. Today, some of them are being echoed from the White House."

The film depicts a young skinhead (played by Edward Furlong) analyzing and interpreting the events surrounding the incarceration of his older brother for voluntary manslaughter. The latter, however, leaves prison ready to abandon white supremacy for a life free of hate. The result overflows with racist rhetoric that reflects statements made by President Donald Trump himself.

The following, for instance, is from a speech shouted by Derek Vinyard (Edward Norton, in an Academy Award-nominated role) to his Neo-Nazi cohort prior to assaulting the non-white employees of a grocery store: "Our border policy's a joke! So, is anybody surprised that south of the border they're laughing at us? Laughing at our laws?" The idea of foreigners wantonly "laughing" at America's immigration laws is a metaphor Trump has used for years. On July 30, Trump tweeted: "Illegal immigration is a top National Security problem. After decades of playing games, with the whole World laughing at the stupidity of our immigration laws..." The tweet goes on to suggest that the Democrats are conspiring to undermine America's immigration system.

The laughter is gone from this discourse as the president, his advisors, and his allies have shifted to more militant language. Referring to the Migrant Caravan traveling north from Central America, Trump tweeted "This is an invasion of our Country and our Military is waiting for you!" Trump has followed-up his venomous bluster against these migrants, in particular, by ordering the Pentagon to send up to 14,000 troops to the US-Mexico border as well as threatening to eliminate birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

In another scene, Danny Vinyard (Furlong) recalls how he idolized his older brother Derek for successfully driving people of color away from public spaces in Venice Beach, saying in voiceover, "For a while, he really made it like it was ours again." Returning our supposedly broken social systems to some former glory is a core tenet of Trumpism, and the current iteration of America's conservative movement. Danny's sentiment, that Venice Beach was ours again, is merely a localized version of Trump's perennial rallying cry to Make America Great Again.

Folks in the nineties understood American History X as a product of domestic terrorism. The film, in part, captured the public's fear and fascination with militant white supremacist groups following the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing orchestrated by Timothy McVeigh. The attack killed 168 people, the most destructive terrorist event on American soil until 9/11. Communities across the country feared that theirs would become the next target in an unfolding reign of terror aimed at establishing a white ethnostate.

The attacks on 9/11 upended those fears. The unspoken national concept of "terrorist" shifted from white American male to nebulous Arab foreigner. "If the terrorist is homegrown, there's always a possibility that you're going to give them some kind of pass. The unspoken impression is that they can't be as bad as the brown people from other countries," says Paul Smith, professor of cultural studies at George Mason University.

The nuanced tale unfolding throughout American History X turned out to be an aberration. Entertainment and popular culture eagerly cast Muslims as America's bogeyman du jour. Meanwhile, the zero-sum nature of the American attention span left no room for fears of white supremacy and its fanatical adherents, forcing them to the farthest fringes of worries and fears. Films in the early-aughts like Arlington Road and The Sum of All Fears became the norm. White supremacists and Neo-Nazis were villains devoid of all but the most basic motivations for their morbid crimes.

"Even when homegrown terrorists were quite active in the nineties, we didn't ask them very much about themselves," says Smith. "Certainly, there's a real absence of people pointing to the fact that white supremacist ideas have been around in American culture for a century and a half, and have appeared in different places at different times."

This disinterest in a full view of history is endemic to American culture. It causes the past to become a mishmash of individual motives divorced from its own larger context. It's a defense mechanism that prevents the assignation of blame for massive cultural traumas, like slavery and state-sanctioned racism.

American History X is, in part, a victim of this individualization of history. Its atomized story distills a complex journey into the bodies of Derek and Danny. And yet, we never see the payoff of either these characters confronting, head-on, the hate they helped to fester.

In the film's final act, Derek convinces Danny to join him in abandoning white supremacism. Derek is himself called on by community leaders to confront his old gang over a recent incident. Derek wavers. He tries to find a way out of becoming an active participant in this struggle, but finally if noncommittally agrees to help. The promised payoff -- one last meeting between Derek and his former gang -- is permanently interrupted after Danny is gunned down by a black classmate retaliating over a confrontation the former instigated at the start of the movie.

According to the film, there's never an end to the repercussions from the violence of white supremacists. There are pauses of random duration, but the film never makes clear how the tragedy they breed might translate into real change. Danny's murder takes precedence over Derek confronting his former crew. A similar trauma started Derek on the journey that led to white supremacism. A single act of violence doubly interrupts both protagonists from turning their newfound anti-hate into actions that help stop the white supremacy both had actively spread. With Danny as Derek's primary motivation to move beyond hate, he's now left vulnerable to returning to that world.

Pauses between this kind of violence hardly seems to exist anymore. There's no difference between the fundamental hate of the gangs represented in American History X and the various groups of today's fringe right. Whether it's the Alt-Right marching on Charlottesville, Proud Boys brawling in streets countrywide, an armed anti-Semite stalking death into a synagogue, or Derek Vinyard mid-curb-stomp, it's all the same. White supremacy has existed for centuries. It's lurked on the fringes of American power since the birth of this nation. Its reign in the White House may very well continue unless the people vote for non-racist and avowedly non-white-supremacist candidates over the course of the next several elections.

Still, there is at least one notable difference that makes today's white supremacists far more dangerous than the skinheads of American History X. The movie portrays skinheads as visually different from non-hateful folks. They're suited up in boots with red laces, heads gleaming from a fresh shave, and tatted with Nazi insignia and racist slogans. White supremacists today have largely adopted a policy of fitting into society rather than standing out.

"Nowadays, you have Richard Spencer wearing a polo shirt and some khakis. It's a good branding effort that allows white supremacists to slink into spaces and attract audiences that someone wearing boots and some horrible racist t-shirt couldn't back in the day," warns Beirich.

Gavin McInnes* and his group The Proud Boys, who don't identify as white nationalists but share many of the core values, for example, sport Fred Perry polos as a kind of uniform. Neo-nazi blogger and founder of The Daily Storm Andrew Anglin similarly attempted to declare New Balance sneakers as white people's official shoes. Viewed together, these seemingly frivolous sartorial preferences form a diabolical pattern.

"All these groups that are around now are just us from the nineties that have been polished up a little bit. I'll hear some of this stuff and all I can think about is how I heard the same exact thing thirty years ago," says Frankie Meeink, co-founder of Life After Hate, a group that helps white supremacists exit the movement. Meeink was involved with a skinhead gang during his formative years. He chose to leave after interactions with members of the Jewish and black community made him question his beliefs. Some claim that American History X was based on his story, though Meeink doesn't care whether that's true or not. The message of Life After Hate is what matters.

Trump himself has made white supremacist views part of his legacy, upholding those vicious values through his White House policies. " I'm a nationalist," he cried out on a stage in Texas. He tweets, "Today's Democrat Party would rather protect criminal aliens than AMERICAN CITIZENS - which is why the Democrats must be voted OUT of OFFICE!" His use of the term "Democrat," in particular, reflects several moments in American History X. White supremacists in the film casually use the word as a pejorative against any who disagree with their views, especially women.

The entrenchment of these beliefs in the White House has granted white supremacists unprecedented influence around the country. According to a report by the Southern Poverty Law Center, "Historically, these groups rise during Democratic presidencies out of fear of gun control measures and federal law enforcement action against them. They typically decline under GOP presidencies. This has not been the case under Trump, whose radical views and bigotry may be energizing them in the same way he has invigorated hate groups." A recent study, furthermore, found that close to 6 percent of whites in the US hold Alt-Right views, amounting to at least 11,000,000 people nationwide.

"Those numbers are massive compared to where they were when American History X came out," says Tony McAleer, Board Chair of Life After Hate.

For McAleer, a former white supremacist, the lasting legacy of the film is its characters' capacity for turning toward love and compassion. "It really presents an allegory to an exit program. It's a brave, bold film, years ahead of its time," he says.

The film, as such, builds to a moment when Derek, at his lowest, receives tough love and compassion from his high school English teacher Sweeney (played by Avery Brooks), who is black. He regularly visits Derek in prison and becomes the individual that tasks Danny with the essay about Derek's life that gives the film its structure. In a defining moment, Derek is raped by Aryan Nation inmates for questioning their commitment to white supremacy. Sweeney arrives with books and consoles Derek, but asks, "Has anything you've done made your life better?" Derek sobs. No, his unspoken answer.

"At that moment, I started crying," says McAleer. "I answered that question for myself the same way he did."

Groups like Life After Hate believe that Sweeney's approach of outreach, dialogue, and compassion is the surest way to end hateful tendencies. This can become problematic, since the burden of educating and reforming white racists can fall to black and non-black people of color. By this accord, Sweeney encapsulates the trope of the "Magical Negro, " tasked with variously solving the problems of white protagonists and absolving them of their racial biases.

Even so, Meeink believes that openness and the willingness to find common ground offer the best opportunity for changing the minds and hearts of white supremacists.

Meeink says, "When I talk to people about leaving these thoughts behind, we don't even start out talking about their beliefs. I talk about life. It's just about looking at your life and wondering if it's where you're meant to be."

Major media outlets have struggled alongside many in the general public with how to talk about white supremacy. The New York Times, for example, received a swarm of critiques for a piece published that many believe pandered in bothsidesism regarding the rhetoric that inspired the MAGAbomber. It seems like every news cycle makes these groups an increasingly prominent part of the national discourse. People want a way to discuss and investigate what that means for the culture at large, but the violence inherent to white supremacy nullifies our capacity for focusing on anything outside its bountiful brutality.

Twenty years since it's release, American History X could be a way for our culture to interact with this pervasive and complex issue. Through it, we can better understand both the need to hold white supremacists accountable for their actions, as Sweeney does for Derek, and invite them to embrace a life of love, as Derek does for Danny. It represents one of our few cultural touchstones documenting white supremacy. Its viewers can better understand just how deeply-rooted this problem is, and why it cannot be allowed to grow unabated.
Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily. Follow Clayton Schuster on Twitter. *Gavin McInnes was a co-founder of Vice Media. He left the company in 2008 and has had no involvement since then. He founded The Proud Boys organization in 2016.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'American History X' Premiered 20 Years Ago, But It's More Relevant Than Ever

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Two decades ago, American History X brought to life the ugly realities of white supremacy. Never before had moviegoers seen the horrifying minutiae of Neo-Nazi skinhead culture -- flowing blood and cracking bone, the hypocrisy, the devotion to hate, the difficult journey of leaving hate for good.

# data[].attributes.body
This article will help tie the movie into modern times. It can be used for many things but the relevancy of our political climate is a major factor. Also, the reference of "Liberal media" will be key for my paper.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I'm afraid we're going to be writing about American History X forever.

Today marks the 20th anniversary of the release of Tony Kaye's film, but it feels like we're writing about the events of its plot every day-particularly in the last week. We're writing about it when a man walks into a Pittsburgh synagogue and shouts "all Jews must die" before killing 11 people. We're writing about it when a Kentucky white man kills two black people in a supermarket a few days earlier. We're writing an entirely different story altogether, because the latter gets a second-billing headline because there are too many hate crimes competing for the lead. Perhaps the reason that American History X still feels so relevant two decades after its release is because we haven't done enough for it not to be.

The 1998 film follows high schooler and white supremacist Danny Vinyard (Edward Furlong), who has been assigned an essay chronicling the events that led to his brother Derek (Edward Norton, who earned an Oscar nomination for his performance), a fellow neo-Nazi, being incarcerated for murdering two black men. Over the course of two hours, the timeline of Derek Vinyard's neo-Nazism unravels, from forming a gang of Los Angeles white supremacists to his rehabilitation in prison. When you think of the film, you may remember the most dramatic points: the curb stomp scene, the brutal prison rape, and the dramatic finale in which Danny is gunned down in the bathroom before turning in his report. But American History X 's most poignant message exists in some of its least violent moments.

The film's premise feels a bit like a fantasy-the manifestation of racism isn't something often remedied in a 24-hour period like Danny's case, or even over the course of a three-year prison sentence like Derek's. In a way, it's a condition that you're always recovering from. What makes American History X so fascinating (and, perhaps, surreal) two decades later is that the talking points of white supremacy within the film-and the characters who push back against them-are all so similar, a stark reminder that America in 2018 doesn't look too different from America in 1998 (something the blunt call out to Hillary Rodham Clinton sets up at the very beginning of the film).

That's not to say American History X isn't rooted in the time in which its set, as a scene in which the film's characters discuss the Rodney King beating in 1991 serves as the point of reference for police brutality. The liberal members of the Vinyard family reference how the use of force was excessive. Derek and his neo-Nazi girlfriend argue that relevant information about King wasn't put out for public consumption. The phrase "liberal media" is tossed out. The arguments, the positions, the perennial hate of black people and immigrants and Jewish people are just recycled players in a seemingly never-ending argument. It subject may be a very '90s reference, but the rhetoric that surrounds it is evergreen.

American History X is a portrait of an American holding pattern. Racism and hatred aren't parts of a chapter of American history-it's a hallmark.

From a distance, we remember American History X similarly to Gene Siskel when he first reviewed it in 1998 for : "a shockingly powerful screed against racism that also manages to be so well performed and directed that it is entertaining as well." But calling American History X "entertaining" in 2018 feels like a gross simplification of a still-existing problem. Maybe in its first viewing in 1998, critics and audiences assumed we would have made more progress than we have. But with every in-film argument sounding like a repurposed right-wing tweet or left-wing response, it's clear American History X is a portrait of an American holding pattern. Racism and hatred aren't parts of a chapter of American history-it's a hallmark.

At the time of the film's release, the name that rang most relevant was James Byrd Jr., a black man dragged behind a truck by three white supremacists until his arm and head were severed from his body. A full decade later, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act was signed into law. But the list of hate crime victims has only continued to grow exponentially since. Now, there are too many headlines for the spotlight to be on a single case for too long. With American History X 's anniversary upon us, I find myself wary to recommend a rewatch for fear that someone would see the film as a blueprint instead of a warning.

Digging through critiques and pieces on the cultural climate in 1998, I found The Washington Post review a bit more accurate than most of the others I read. Michael O'Sullivan wrote, "At its most forceful when it is not being heavy-handed or preachy, the blunt and brutal American History X is ultimately only as imperfect as we ourselves are." And maybe that's what I fear most: The imperfections of those in the film haven't been improved, but rather exacerbated over the past 20 years. It seems that with the state our world is in, the main difference between the world of American History X and our current one is that it's somehow more permissible to voice hatred in public forum.

I'm afraid we're going to be writing about American History X forever. I'm afraid of what will happen if we don't.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'American History X' Remains Tragically Relevant 20 Years Later

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I'm afraid we're going to be writing about American History X forever. Today marks the 20th anniversary of the release of Tony Kaye's film, but it feels like we're writing about the events of its plot every day-particularly in the last week.