Hip Hop

In response to the comment about patronizing the listeners of hip-hop, I don’t think we should judge but we shouldn't look the other way. We should question what they’re saying and why they’re saying it because most of the stuff they are saying is problematic and it should be discussed to understand the subculture.

Though it was shown in a crude way, the message in the video shown at the beginning of the class was absolutely correct. Because most of the big labels are owned by white men, the artists are controlled and their songs are too. I think that the labels want a certain type of stereotype portrayed about black people. In the documentary, one of the aspiring rappers confesses that no one wants to pick up “conscious rap” anymore; no one wants to listen to it. I don’t think it’s because of tastes changing, I think it is a purposeful act to suppress thoughts opposing the “white mainstream. It’s hard to discuss something when you’re an outsider so please excuse me and my speculative analysis.

The Power of Subculture as Explained by Seth Godin

When reading Chapter 4 of Goths, Gamers, & Grrls I came across this line:

"Still, the financial rewards of sexist mainstream hip hop will likely confine much of conscious hip hop to the underground." (Haenfler, P. 52)


All validity aside, this statement raises an important question.  How can subcultures with noble aims gain the necessary traction to reach their targets?


This weekend I watched the following TED talk by Seth Godin

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/seth_godin_on_the_tribes_we_lead.html

This clip is 17 minutes and I highly recommend watching it.  I highly recommend watching TED talks in general.  Oftentimes I feel like I learn more watching TED than I do in my classes.

Anyway, in this talk, Seth Godin talks about the tribes we lead.  He points to tribes as a very powerful instigator of change.  We do not need to have power over millions.  We just need to take the lead for a small section of people.  Our own tribe will then be able to link up with another tribe who exists for an entirely different reason but still shares our common vision.  The tribe of Parkour enthusiasts from the east coast and the tribe of men who like brewing their own beer might each be passionate about climate change.  Separately, these tribes are pretty insignificant, but with the power of the internet, small groups  such as these can link up to take a stance on major issues.

This concept makes me think of these subcultures who have ideas about certain issues.  I believe as Seth Godin does that these groups have the power to make real change.  Just because the mainstream money makers favor sexist hip hop doesn't mean the "consious hip hop"groups cannot use the power of tribes to make a change.

Obviously I cannot make any specific claims about how this would happen, but the concept still intrigues me and I thought some or all of you would find it interesting.

At the very least, you should check out TED if you haven't already.

Hip Hop Evolving? Other Sub Cultures As Well?

I found it interesting throughout my research for the upcoming presentation that hip-hop has really changed from what it was ten or even twenty years ago. In my opinion, thought his may sound somewhat strange, hip-hop takes form of the current mainstream culture. Take a look at the Rapper's Delight "music video" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6gD_CwF5YM). Never would you see any artists today (Unless doing so provocatively) dress or dance like the people in the video. Why? Because hip hop today takes on a different form. However, what's interesting is the question: What form does it really take today? We can classify each time period through a certain number of mainstream and subcultures before (e.g. Hippies in the 60's), but today almost every subculture and mainstream culture thrives, whether it be skateboarders, hippies, etc, which leads to hip-hop having many forms. Here are some examples:

1) Artists like Lil Wayne are involving themselves in the skateboarding culture (http://www.sohh.com/img/lil-wayne-skateboard-2011-10-22-300x300.jpg), and though horrible, Lil Wayne has even involved himself with the electric guitar
2) Artists like B.O.B and Drake have integrated different types of music before unknown to the hip-hop culture, whether it be electric disco, featuring pop stars (e.g. Rihanna, Taylor Swift, etc.), or both singing and rapping.
3) Hip-Hop has used shoes as one of its main trending styles; what's interesting is that while going through my closet, I found this pair of shoes: http://5.kicksonfire.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/nike-dunk-high-pro-sb-de-la-soul-baroque-brown-altitude-green-1.jpg. I will bring these on Tuesday during the presentation, but the fact that a hip-hop artist group designed a skateboarding pair of shoes was really intriguing to me, as if they purposely did that to reel in more audience from different backgrounds.

Follow Up Questions From Thursday's Class

Follow up notes from Thursday's Hip Hop/Race and Gender Discussions

These are the main topics we focused on in class- important things to keep in mind and maybe good prompts for blog posts!

• Do hip hop artists have to assert their status through more pop culture relevant lyrics before making conscious rap?
  
• Systematic racism as more damaging to the culture than sexism
  
• Female rappers/ females in general have to "do it better than men" in order to be successful/ recognized
  
• Can violence be attributed to the glorification in rap/hip hop at all?
  
• Who is the "mainstream" that we are talking about?- we classified it as suburban youth/ all youth/ top 40 esque radio
  
• Is the image of the rapper as "hard" or hyper masculine declining as hip hop merges with other genres?
  
• What is the importance of honesty/"street cred" in hip hop- ie rapper from suburbia rapping about "the hood"?
  
• Is the music/culture of hip hop damaging to the African American race/ those involved- Is it patronizing/useless to discuss this from an outside perspective?

Lil' Wayne Documentary

So recently a video came out on the internet featuring Lil' Wayne during his deposition. As some of you may know, a relatively well-known documentary came out in 2009 called 'The Carter', created by Quincy Jones III, in which Lil' Wayne was followed by a camera for some period of time. This film might provide some insight into the life of a moden-day hip hop artist that could perhaps familiarize those of us who don't know much about the hip hop culture in general. Anyway Lil' Wayne objected against the documentary claiming it was a "scandalous portrayal" of him and has since been trying to sue Quincy Jones. The reason I felt this related to our class discussion today was simply Lil' Wayne's attitude in this video. He manages to portray many of the things we associate with hip hop culture such as violence and a rise-to-the-top attitude all in a single 5 minute clip. He appears disrespectful, ignorant, and blatantly aggressive at various parts of the video and it seemed like an interesting glance at the person that has the ability to influence millions of people through his music. The video itself is almost comical and I'm not quite sure how anyone can respect someone like that.  As I was trying to find out more about this whole debacle, I started to notice some of the titles and comments on youtube that seemed to glorify Lil' Wayne's performance by people, i'm assuming, to be his fans. This goes back to what we were talking about in class how these hip hop artists not only include violence in their music, they seem to encourage it in their audience by glorifying this type of behavior. Anyway it was just something that caught my eye, feel free to watch the video itself or I have the link to the documentary below as well if you would like.

'The Carter' Documentary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbKpdsLspwo

9/20 discussion follow up: American Hardcore

We (or at least I thought so) had a good discussion today on punk. We discussed media's influence on punk, the aspects of punk like "self indulgence" that leads to assumptions of "childishness", the expansion of DIY over the years, punk band camaraderie, and the "non-death" of punk.

We answered most of my questions, but one: In what ways did punk culture revive (if it did at all)? Would you consider the punk bands today as "hardcore punk bands?" How are the issues, attitudes, and overall image of punk different now than in the hardcore punk era in the 80's? How are they the same?

You guys can discuss that in the comments or this:

The only outside video that I wanted to show you in class but had no time for was a clip from a documentary called the Decline of Western Civilization. It's about the punk scene and it was filmed from December 1979-May 1980. I thought it was interesting and I would recommend you guys check it out. So the clip starts at the 5:45 mark. The publisher of Slash magazine, Robert Biggs, is talking about the different letters the magazine gets world wide.

What do you guys think about punk being "the only form of revolution" worldwide?

So that's basically it. Thanks everyone for the discussion today. I was nervous being an outsider of punk leading a discussion on it, but you all made it easy for me. 

SHOCK

I was interested in a point that was brought up in class today about shock. One thing that has become clear from punk and hardcore, is it's overt love affair with all that is shocking. Torn clothing, dyed hair, tattoos, piercings, and then of course the loud sound and violent behavior are all seemingly intent on throwing order into disarray. What I'm a little more skeptical of, is that this shock culture is born out of adolescents. This past week the New York Times ran an article about "The Rite of Spring" a now celebrated ballet, that at it's time was considered absurd, and even shocking. I would like to use this article to make the case that punk isn't shocking because adolescents did it, it's shocking because it's art.

Lets consider the seminole salon des refuses of 1863. It was here that Manet first unveiled his painting "Le Dejeuner Sur L'Herbe", and despite it's current recognition as one of the most important works of art in the world, the piece was received as an offensive mockery of art, truly shocking. I should also point out that manet was 31 years old at the time of the Salon, hardly a brooding adolescent.  More recently, as the NYT article points out, artists from Karen Finley to Thomas Hirschhorn have used the power of shock to call attention to the atrocities of both war and sexism. Certainly, Punk was shocking, and to much of this country it still is. I just don't believe the shock is born simply from youth, but rather from newness or calculated artistic choices.

Here's the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/arts/shock-me-if-you-can.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=2&adxnnlx=1348164178-z0zvi3/9juhgc2M3t+776g

American Hardcore not on Blackboard

When I clicked on the link from blackboard it did not work.
This link worked for me http://www.veoh.com/watch/v11120791FXsHQhwN?h1=American+Hardcore+(documentary_2006)

Paul Ryan and Rage Against the Machine

I referenced this article in class earlier today, so I thought posting the actual article describing Tom Morello, Rage Against the Machine's guitarist's reaction.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/tom-morello-paul-ryan-is-the-embodiment-of-the-machine-our-music-rages-against-20120816

9/18 Discussion Follow Up

Hey Everyone.  I just wanted to say a few words in follow up to our discussion today.

We brought up some interesting points:

The texts we read do not necessarily take an authentic look at Punk.  Sometimes meaning is attributed where no meaning exists

We spent a a fair amount of time talking about politics and how they relate to punks, celebrities, and people with public acclaim.

We tried to decipher the role of music in all of this.  Are punks trying to enact social change?

We attempted to take on a definition of mass media, citing social media as falling under that umbrella.  When discussing the media, we tried to figure out who really has control over our culture.  Technology is shortening our attention spans but does that necessarily make us susceptible to mass media control?

We definitely saw how cultural changes are happening all over the world, faster than ever, and how that may have something to to do with population growth.

Oh and we watched the Gangnam Style video, which had something to do with all of this.

Dr. K gave us some clues as to how to engage with the texts and really make strong arguments regarding the authors' claims.

Here is the link to the 60 minutes video about punk from the late 70's.  I find this to be a useful example of mass media portayal of subculture.  Hebdige incorporation anyone?

CBGB on 60 minutes from late 70's

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxqOdnOpOuU

Also the following text from Kurt Cobain's suicide note gives us a very personal look into the grunge scene, which we did not get to talk about much. 

"All the warnings from the punk rock 101 courses over the years, since my first introduction to the, shall we say, ethics involved with independence and the embracement of your community has proven to be very true. "

"The fact is, I can't fool you, any one of you. It simply isn't fair to you or me. The worst crime I can think of would be to rip people off by faking it and pretending as if I'm having 100% fun. Sometimes I feel as if I should have a punch-in time clock before I walk out on stage. I've tried everything within my power to appreciate it"

"I have it good, very good, and I'm grateful, but since the age of seven, I've become hateful towards all humans in general. Only because it seems so easy for people to get along that have empathy"

Those excerpts from the note definitely make you think about what punk, grunge, and the music is all about.  

That's just about all I can think. If there was something itching you in class and you didn't have a chance to say it, we'd love to read/hear/see it.  

Popular Opinion

The questions was raised in class today (shortly after watching the Chuck Norris ad) as to whether or not public opinion turns against a celebrity figure when they state their political affiliation or reveal their stances on  sensitive issues and, if not, why?

In my opinion people do not turn against celebrities in this situation because, in reality, their opinions don't matter very much to us. Unless a celebrity says something particularly offensive or inflammatory, their opinions are usually met with pleased surprise or dismissed as just another dissenting view to one's own opinions.  Few, if any, people change their entire stance on an issue simply because a celebrity endorses one view over another. Similarly it is rare to stop supporting an entertainer’s work because of their worldview. For example, I think that Tom Cruise is a crazy, crazy man. Does this stop me from buying into his character in the Mission Impossible movies? No it does not. The reality is that we know celebrities for their work (in this case I am ignoring the “reality” stars because they are judged solely by their words and actions) and that is largely how we judge them

Where the problem arises I feel, again besides an overly controversial action, is in hypocrisy. When an entertainer creates a career around a certain point of view and then goes against that point of view at any time, that is when people begin to turn against them. We do not think less of Chuck Norris for expressing his republicanism (or at least I don’t) because Chuck Norris didn’t gain fame making movies about fighting for universal healthcare or blowing up elephants. We do, however, criticize Green day for becoming overly mainstream when they sold records based on rebelling against such corporate structures. I feel this also relates to the themes of authenticity we have come across. Opinions are not discouraged, hypocrisy is.

                

Pussy Riot

For your education:

http://freepussyriot.org/

Circle Jerks new documentary

The L.A. punk band has a new documentary coming out. They are featured in American Hardcore several times. I stumbled upon this and thought it might be interesting.

ok so in class, I asked about what makes poser a poser. The books definition is someone who wears the trappings of a subculture but who others perceive to fail to live out or truly believe in the subculture's ideas. The book then outlines all of the accepted rules of punk including wearing a certain style of clothing, listening to certain bands, and dancing a certain way. What confuses me is that among these, is the idea of a "do it yourself" attitude. I don't understand how a subculture with "do it yourself" nonconformist ideals can also have a set of values and guidelines for what makes someone authentic. Can someone please explain how these ideas can possibly coincide? Out of curiosity, I searched "why is the band green day considered a punk poser?" and  this was one of the first links:   http://www.wikihow.com/Become-a-Punk-Rocker

If you don't feel like looking at it, it basically just describes the 9 steps to "becoming a punk rocker".
The rules listed here match, almost exactly, those listed in the book and addressed in class. HOW CAN YOU DIFFERENTIATE between those who picked up these values naturally and wholeheartedly and those who just googled it to fit "the scene".  Please dont get me wrong, I get that there is a difference. I just dont get how members of the subculture can tell who is real and who is just posing.

Evolution of Punk, and Subsequently Subcultures Themselves

One day was just one of those Thrice days. I opened up my iTunes and decided to listen to all the albums of the band. While doing so, I couldn't help but recognize the subtle changes of their playing style throughout their different albums. Because today Thrice is identified as an "Alternative" band, which subsequently is a form of Punk, I thought it would be interesting to write some analysis since talking about it during class is much more difficult.

There are two songs I'd like to talk about in particular: Deadbolt and Circles, with the former released earlier than the latter. When you compare the two, you can immediately conclude that the former is much more aggressive with the guitars, screaming vocals, drums, etc. After reading chapter three in Goths, Gamers, and Grrrls, I couldn't help but think of this as one of the examples the book gave. The meaning within the song is about temptation that individuals struggle with against society, a common theme found within punk songs. I've also added a link to a concert of Thrice's playing of the song; you can see the audience "moshpitting," a common thing found in these types of concerts.

Next is Circles which is a much more relaxed song; the guitar, drums, and vocals are much more relaxing. Though still the same band, Thrice decided to change their identity from a hardcore punk band to that of an alternative one, a much more "calmer" punk band. Another example would be the song Beggars. Even videos of the band performing live are no longer in environments similar to that of Deadbolt. The audience is much more relaxed, and there seems to be a more settling feeling. Furthermore, though the band's main message against society hasn't changed throughout the albums, their playing style certainly has transformed. I've added a link for both songs below as well.

 I've always supported the band, and even my friends who listen to the band and reviewers of their album give positive remarks. I thought it was interesting in the fact that the audience of this certain group can accept change; you always see other groups slashing at the fact that "They changed because they want to make more money." But why the positive remarks for Thrice? In my personal opinion, I believe that if a subculture undergoes a transformation, but still retains the same message while going by that message, they can still maintain the same amount, if not more, of number for their audience. 

When we watched the video of the certain punk band and examined the lyrics during class (I apologize but I totally forgot the band's and song's name..), most of us came to the conclusion that this song didn't represent the punk era: Though the lyrics certainly showed it, the band portrayed itself as a "mainstream" band that seemed to come into conflict with the very lyrics it published.

On the other hand, Thrice is a relatively quiet band in that it's not mainstream nor does it have as much fan base as other musicians and bands have, e.g. Justin Bieber, Drake, Linkin Park, etc. In doing so, it seems as if Thrice would not accept the opportunity to become a mainstream band if it wanted to, while still writing the same lyrics.

All in all, I just thought it'd be interesting to share with you guys what I thought with bands, while maintaing the same if not more fan base,  changing the style of their music throughout time.


LINKS:
Deadbolt (Concert): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BTqALvNJO4 (NOTE: This concert was recently uploaded in 2012, but the song itself is older. Also, the other concert videos were in worse quality)

Circles (Concert): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-BnpgPfCnw

Beggars (Concert): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-CiSVxCWzw

Punk and Hardcore Follow Up

Punk Presentation Follow Up

I think that going into our discussion, most members of the class felt that punk presence had somewhat dwindled at least in the mainstream, but after the discussion I think the influence of punk will now be seen as relatively prominent. It does not need to be a band like the Sex Pistols or Black Flag to be punk, and in todays mainstream culture punk's influence can be seen in the spectrum between an artist like Frank Ocean, who cites Basement as one of his favorite bands, or an artist like Danny Brown who, although he is a hip hop artist has adopted punk's DIY ethic and self-released all of his material.

In today's culture, many people who would once be labeled as punk, or label themselves punk no longer carry that name. The label itself has declined in importance, but the values and ethics themselves have remained strong and spread. Corporate juggernauts like Walmart and Lowe's have even adopted the Do It Yourself slogan and have attempted to promote a mentality that values going through the process and doing it yourself the whole way through.

Rob and Jake

Dwight Likes Subcultures Too

Hi, everyone! I meant to post this yesterday, but my laptop's been having problems until today. If you know the show "The Office" and its character, Dwight, he has his own Youtube account! I just found out about this two days ago, and interestingly enough, he has a separate section about subcultures that are "contemporary." What I mean by that is subcultures we see today that we wouldn't have seen ten or twenty years ago (e.g. Krumping). Although there's only four videos up so far, they are very interesting! Each video is about 5-6 minutes long, so it's not that hard to watch any of them! Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL47F7B78E8C0D1DA7&feature=plcp

American History X

Throughout my viewing of "American History X" I could not help but notice how disillusioned all the D.O.C. members seemed. Even Derek, "the golden boy," was revealed as a mere child still seeking the appraisal of his lost father. Although Derek had become and adult, and believed he had his worldview completely figured out before his prison stint, he really was just a lost boy with the ideals of his father ingrained in his memory. He missed his dad, and the racist tendencies that were passed down from father to son were magnified by his tragic death. This left Derek with a skewed worldview, but it took a man who saw the potential to manipulate his fragile mind to drive him to the edge. Once Derek became charismatically involved in the white power movement, he was given the responsibility of finding new recruits and bringing them to the movement. Derek was perfectly suited for this because he found kids who were the way he once was. Lost, alone and in need of a feeling of belonging. Imagine what the outcome would have been if instead of taking these kids and making them members of the white power movement. How much positivity would have come from these children involving themselves in a group devoted to making a better world for themselves and future generations?

Derek picked up kids who were lost. They shared a nostalgia for when they did not fear the neighborhood they lived in. Derek pinned this fear on the incorporation of other races, and used this as the driving force to pull them into the white power movement. Maybe a lack of good jobs and a deteriorating social structure was more responsible than the mere involvement of new people who happened to be a bit different. These children easily could have been brought into a group devoted to fixing the problems in their community. Cleaning it up, educating themselves about why crime was such a problem in their area and making an effort to correct it then, or when they were old enough to be financially and democratically responsible for their community. These kids did not seek out the white power movement. They were searching for somewhere to belong. They did not need racism, they instead needed a place where they felt safe. Where they were not alone. A community that they could truly call their own. Acceptance was their great interest. Derek gave them a place to be accepted.

Too often are young people in this exact position that they are taken into a group based on negative actions. Like the D.O.C., groups like the bloods and crips use a feeling of acceptance for lost children who feel marginalized to continue to grow. My real view is, what if all these groups that give children homes worked positively? Wouldn't the world be a much better place? In this new world, would there even be a place for negative groups like the D.O.C.?

Skinheads and American History X: How New Media is Reshaping Youth Subculture

During our discussion on American History X, I was rather struck by the Nat Geo Video on internet recruitment of Skinheads.  I think most of us agreed that the media presents an inaccurate, limited portrayal of Skinheads as white supremacists etc... Whether Nat Geo has the story wrong or not, the fact remains that the internet has become a powerful tool for social revolution and the development of subculture.  

I think about my own experiences on the internet.  These days you can seek out groups of like minded people for just about anything.  James Bond fans, trumpet nerds, Paleo dieters, Ex-pat vagabonds working location-independant, freelance jobs. The list is extensive.  The number of niches and micro-niches that survive and thrive on the internet is countless.  The internet has become a safe haven for people of all interests and backgrounds to collaborate and share ideas.  No matter how weird, obscure, deviant, or un-PC the interest, somewhere out there exists a group of like-minded people ready to welcome you with open arms.  

I don't want to sound like an old man when I say this but back in my day, access to the internet came with strict parental controls.  I do not know of the current state of internet censorship among families, but if I had to guess, I would say content on the internet is less restricted than ever.  With such easy access to the full scope of the internet, young people are incredibly capable of seeking out and finding any number of niche groups.  

No longer are kids required to fit into a few broad social categories.  The black and white world of jocks and nerds has been replaced by a world where youths can find solace in their own little corners of cyberspace.  With the internet as an outlet, youth subcultures emerge without the need to go public and without the fear of social rebuttal from peers, teachers or parents.  

Based on my own observations, the upcoming generation of middle and high schoolers are woefully inept at personal interactions.  The obvious cause lies with the rise of instant communication, but I'd like to consider the possibility that the aforementioned usage of the internet has stunted the outward personalities of youths.  If young people only feel free to express their true personalities in a safe, digital environment of tight knit peers, why do we expect them to be outwardly personable and social in the real world?  

Overall I would say that we should be aware of this possible new trend in youth culture.  None of this might be true and yet the possibility still remains.  What is the solution?  Maybe someone with a higher degree has the answer.  As a future educator, I'd be curious to find out.

Never Met a Skinhead

I've always considered Philadelphia an eclectic city. I've seen its variety of cultures and subcultures as a broad view into the many people who live in our country. And yet in what I've always felt was totality, I've found vast holes. Perhaps, it's the demographic, perhaps the region, but after reading about Skinheads I had a brief epiphany, that despite the metropolitan status, Philadelphia is a parochial and even limited city in the subcultures that occupy it.

I've never really met a skinhead. I've met plenty of punks, graffiti artists, rappers, b-boys, train hoppers, and hippies, but no skinheads. This brings to mind a question, what develops a subculture like skinheads and prevents it from developing in a city like Philadelphia? Of course the textbook looks to points of strain and status. And traditionally, skin heads have developed out of working class communities trying to elevate their style and cope with the monotony of laborious and unyielding lives. Okay, so what is Philly lacking? There are large parts of this city that are home to disgruntled, working class whites. And yet, the youth from those neighborhoods sport glossy shoes, baller shorts, fitted caps and shirts honoring the various sports teams of the city. Where did we go so wrong? 

In contemporary America, the last vestiges of the skinhead movement appear mostly in areas such as the south or more commonly the prison system. These areas are far more rural, and while they may oppose the alternative presence of skinheads, their small size might also encourage a particular need to stand out and rebel. Alienation also has very different consequences in small communities, where the result of being outcast can have dire mental and even physical effects. Historically, skin heads have also developed out of cultures that saw far more heterogeneity. In this climate, the feeling for individualism leads to a more aggressive tactic in style and action.

Philadelphia simply cannot fill this void. In a city where 60 percent of the population is African American, a white reactionary movement seems tumultuous at best. And while punk mirrors aspects of skin head culture, it lacks a racist past, and has been adopted by many middle class adolescents as well. There are of course other elements that resulted in the infertility of a skin head movement in Philadelphia, and at the end of the day I just may have been hanging out in the wrong places to meet local skinheads, but it does seem the disgruntled youth of our city have overlooked the minimalist charm of shaved head.

American History X and Why Some People Join Subcultures

  I just wanted to talk about some ideas we discussed in class about reasons why someone wanted to join a subculture.
  In American History X, you can see that Derek joined the racist Skinhead culture because, after the death of his father, Derek wanted to make him proud by holding up his father's racist ideals. The same pattern can be applied to Danny. When Derek left for jail, Danny felt the need to make him proud by joining Cameron Alexander's racist skinhead group even though (in my opinion) he doesn't truly follow their ideals. In the scene where Danny shows Derek his tattoo, you can see Danny's hesitation and nervousness in the way he clenched his jaw and swallowed when Derek doesn't react the way he expected to. He just wanted approval from Derek. The way Danny acts towards Seth and the sarcasm he uses when talking into Seth's video camera also shows that his heart isn't in the words he's saying. For these two brothers, the reason they joined that culture is for a personal sense of approval from figures they look up to. The key word there is personal. I believe that though cultures form as a collection of people with the same interest, the core reason one joins is personal. Whether it's because one feels lost and alone and needs a sense of community, because one wants to rebel against something, or simply because the style appeals to them, one starts to define themselves as an individual within these cultures. It's important not to see (as most people have with skinheads) a member of a subculture as a representation of that whole subculture, but rather as an individual with their own ideals and beliefs.

Skinhead Follow-Up

Skinhead Presentation Follow-Up

The class agreed that many people are misled by the general stereotype circulated by the media regarding skinheads; that they are all white supremacist neo-Nazis. All skinheads are different, whether they are SHARPs or full on neo-Nazis, so they cannot all be grouped under one heading.

The whole skinhead subculture has declined in recent years as the working class has declined, and while many people have preconceived notions about them, they are hardly seen anymore. Music and clothing styles associated with skinheads still exists, but the people who dress that way or listen to that music won't necessarily consider themselves a skinhead.

Colin and Faiz

American History X



How are the skin heads depicted in the movie related to the stereotypes of skinheads in the American media?
How do the skinheads in this movie reinforce or break away these preexisting stereotypes?
What about the original skinhead movement do you think relates to the racist ideals of the modern skinheads?  What caused this leap forward (or backward) in thinking?
What did they think of the scene when Derek gives the speech before raiding the store? (Unification?)
What are your thoughts on the character of Cameron?  Without him would this culture exist or not have their racist beliefs?