MovieChat Forums > White Dog (1982) Discussion > This film does have a message

This film does have a message


White Dog can be mocked for its blatant problems, but this film also serves as a clever metaphor for racism as well. In the final scene when the dog has to ultimately be put down (even though it should have died when July initially hits it in her car) it left me with a quasi-insightful perspective towards racism. Key’s discovers that even though he could rid the dog of being racist, he could not cure or reprogram the dog of having innate sadistic hatred.

reply

I agree, this film not only has a message but it uses a superb vehicle to deliver the message of the story. They use a dog, an attack dog, who is trained to attack dark skinned people, as a dog sees in black and white. As prejudice and vicious as this dog is as he continue to ruthlessly attack people through out the movie, it is made clear that this animal was conditioned. Racism can evoke such strong feelings of hatred that we often overlook the fact these people who hate us, are not inherently evil, but they were conditioned just like the dog.

It would be really difficult to do a film sympathetic to a racist man, which sought to explore the roots of his problem and deal with the cycle of prejudice in general. This is why Sam Fuller was discredited for this movie, but anyone with a open mind will see what a powerful and moving piece that it is. I think one of the most interesting messages of the film is that an individual can overcome a prejudice, but it is even harder to get those general feelings of hatred out of yourself. There generally is not prejudice without a cause, racists where taught to hate an individual by being conditioned by someone cruel and without a conscious.

reply

Great little thread, even if it's old. This movie does an amazing job at showing us how violent conditioning can permanently damage a living being whether human or dog.. It became his nature. Horrible.

reply


Great little thread, even if it's old. This movie does an amazing job at showing us how violent conditioning can permanently damage a living being whether human or dog.. It became his nature. Horrible.


Yes, the movie showed us something every thinking adult already knows. Masterpiece!!

reply

Yes, the movie showed us something every thinking adult already knows. Masterpiece!!
You'd be surprised to learn how many thinking adults don't know this even to this day. I'm an adult woman from Europe with a relatively privileged and sheltered background who has only recently began to understand how ingrained racism really is in our minds and in our culture. The Western society we live in is conditioned to be racist and the effects of it are brutal. Our children are being murdered on the streets and the justice system thinks that's not only justifiable but a basic right for the white people. In case you don't believe me, just ask Trayvon Martin.



Imagination is more important than knowledge

reply

Thanks for the insight. In case you can't see, we're all waving to you at the bottom of your Ivory Tower.

reply




Imagination is more important than knowledge

reply

The best part of this film is the ending when the dog, in human perception only, of course, becomes "racist" against the White guy after he's trained by the Black guy away from attacking blacks. Hypocritical Marxist-based liberalism though does not allow anti-White racism, since their entire goal is to destroy White European built societies using anti-White racism by pretending that "racism" is already initiated violence. It is nothing of the sort. Racism is violence only when laws are passed INITIATING violence using racial differences as the identifying characteristic of who this violence will be directed against. Defending against violence is invalid as soon as it becomes a matter of vague "collectives" and collective punishment, the antithesis of justice which can only apply to all individuals, every last one, within a group and no one else.

"Racism" is just dislike for certain groups of people for whatever characteristics sometimes more pre-disposed or common or culturally ingrained to that group, including Whites. It is not initiated violence in any form, it is just a choice that certain other people might not agree with, for which they are also, not in our absurd and contradictory society, but in a proper "free" society, free to choose to not associate with and ostracize those people. They are not free to initiate violence against an individual for choosing a path they consider "wrong," since vices are not crimes and never will be. You can never legislate morality since without free choice there is no morality possible:

http://lf-oll.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/2499/Spooner_VicesCrimes1875.pdf

If Jefferson and constitution is what Americans are supposed to prescribe to and not Marx and Lenin and Netanyahu, then only initiated violence or indirect violence in the form of fraud, can be a crime and not the freedom to choose to be "racist" or "sexist" or "homophobic" or "transphobic" or "fatphobic" or anything else.

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." -- Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816

Some geniuses might say that Jefferson did not include blacks in that designation because he was a slave-owner, forgetting that Jefferson offered to free all his slaves and the slaves refused because they preferred working for him to the hardships that would ensue otherwise.

Dogs are predatory pack animals that were originally wolves. They are only domesticated because of hue-man intervention into nature and selective breeding. There is no such thing as a naturally domestic dog, there were only captured wolves that were somewhat friendlier to humans that were then selectively bred to create human-friendly "wolves" called dogs. People can selectively breed your dog's ancestors for 200 years and then you can train your own dog for another ten years. That dog, if left on its own and hungry for a month, will still revert to wild ways and start killing smaller dogs, cats, rabbits, humans, anything it can prey on.

Also "racism" and "sadism" can't apply to animals since they are triggered and programmed instinctual animals and are only trained by hue-mans to "choose" this way or that way. If humans didn't train them, they would kill and eat whatever they could overpower, PERIOD. If they had to rip a child's face off to make their kill and survive, they just do it, they don't say, maybe I should kill my prey more "humanely" and not cause it extra suffering. They kill it and eat it because they have to.

Without freedom to choose there is no such thing as "morality" and morality is only a concept applicable to humans. Only humans have the conceptual ability to even coin those symbols in the first place. Might makes "right" in human affairs because might determines that "rights" make the most might. That's all there is to it. Powerful people passed laws protecting the individual because they liked the products that the individual mind, left alone to be creative, produces. They didn't do it simply because it was "right" but because giving the individual a certain amount of "freedom" allows the non-productive and parasitical gangsters on top to have more weapons both physical and spiritual to steal and con out of the creators later by passing "groups rights" laws that violate the individual, knowing that the public will forget Jefferson's dictum that laws are always unjust when they violate the individual's freedom to choose.

A person can be "sadist" and not "racist" or "racist" and not "sadist" or he can be both at the same time or neither and still a criminal and destructive person. You can't have "freedom to choose" without allowing people to choose ways of life which you, personally, might not approve of. You can't have "freedom of speech" without allowing opinions which you, personally, might not approve of.

For example, if you allow free-speech for the racist Black Panther party and apartheid Israel and call them "Nationalists" or worse "freedom fighters" but not the National Socialists and the KKK because they are "racist," you are obviously a hypocrite. If you are against apartheid South Africa but not apartheid Israel, you are a hypocrite. If you are for freeing Tibet from foreign invasion of their culture by force but not Europe, you are a hypocrite.

Being "racist" or "non-racist" does not imply anything but free choice and a certain type of personality you may or may not want to associate with. It does not imply and can't be equated to initiated violence but simply initiated CHOICE which this or that person might not agree with.

The only moral use of force is in self-defense, and this does not mean "collective" self-defense or collective punishment but individual self-defense. The only collective defense has to include ALL the individuals in the defense that have a valid case and ONLY those individuals. In this type of organization which is called Libertarian or Classical Liberal (never Marxist), you cannot use force against a person until he has initiated force or fraud. No criminal's family has to pay "reparations" to the victim's family because they "benefited" from his crimes outside of direct stolen loot received. The stolen money IN THE EXACT AMOUNT it was stolen is returned, damages as determined proper TO THE INDIVIDUAL VICTIMS and no one else, are paid, the criminal is jailed and that's where it ends.

However, when the criminals in charge of the government bring up this ridiculous term "institutionalized" racism (even though there were no more than 5% of all White people in the Southern USA who ever owned any slaves and many freed Blacks also owned slaves), then they can fleece everyone in perpetuity for the imaginary crimes of not even their immediate family but their entire race or ethnicity. That is actual INITIATED violence in the form of legislation justified as some kind of bogus collective punishment "self-defense" through twisting of ideas and words and concepts from the individual to the group. That is a thousand times more "racist" than some guy who doesn't want to serve you in a restaurant because you're Black or White or Arab or Chinese or Jew or Martian (and by extension in this absurd collective non-thinking - fat, female, homo,barefoot, slut, whore, retarded, etc.)

"It is a notorious fact that the morality of society as a whole is in inverse ratio to its size; for the greater the aggregation of individuals, the more the individual factors are blotted out, and with them morality, which rests entirely on the moral sense of the individual and the freedom necessary for this. Hence, every man is, in a certain sense, unconsciously a worse man when he is in society than when acting alone; for he is carried by society and to that extent relieved of his individual responsibility. . . . Any large company composed of wholly admirable persons has the morality and intelligence of an unwieldy, stupid, and violent animal. The bigger the organization, the more unavoidable is its immorality and blind stupidity. Society, by automatically stressing all the collective qualities in its individual representatives, puts a premium on mediocrity, on everything that settles down to vegetate in an easy, irresponsible way. Individuality will inevitably be driven to the wall. This process begins in school, continues at the university, and rules all departments in which the State has a hand. In a small social body, the individuality of its members is better safeguarded; and the greater is their relative freedom and the possibility of conscious responsibility. Without freedom there can be no morality." ~ Carl Jung (from The Relations Between the Ego and the Unconscious, p.169)

reply

White dogs matter !

reply