Black Agenda Report
Black Agenda Report
News, commentary and analysis from the black left.

  • Home
  • Africa
  • African America
  • Education
  • Environment
  • International
  • Media and Culture
  • Political Economy
  • Radio
  • US Politics
  • War and Empire
  • omnibus

J. Edgar and the Terrorism of Film
07 Dec 2011
🖨️ Print Article

 

A Black Agenda Radio commentary by editor and columnist Jared Ball

Clint Eastwood’s new movie is an attempt to sanitize J. Edgar Hoover’s dirty war to keep white men “atop the social pyramid.” It is also an apartheid film. “We get nothing of his concern over The Black Panther Party, or the surveillance and deportation of people like Claudia Jones and C.L.R. James, or culpability in the killings of say, Malcolm X and Fred Hampton (to name but a few).” It makes the case for a justifiable police state, in which “Hoover is cast positively as a much needed and tough organizer of law enforcement, a protege of Attorney General Palmer's raids against the violent radical terrorists of their day.”

 

J. Edgar and the Terrorism of Film

A Black Agenda Radio commentary by editor and columnist Jared Ball

“Hoover returns even in death to remind the liberal, the affluent, the White that their place atop the social pyramid is legitimate and must be protected by any means necessary.”

J. Edgar, the new film by Clint Eastwood, is a real horror film, it is an act of violence, an act of terrorism. The film's careful construction of FBI founding father J. Edgar Hoover as a flawed but justifiable hero rather than an individual villain performing the tasks of a villainous institution has hit theaters with the precision timing of a predator drone strike and with similar political design. As old antagonisms produce new and threatening responses, as new generations emerge taking their turn asking serious questions about the planet, equality, justice and self-determination, be they occupiers or decolonizers, Hoover returns even in death to remind the liberal, the affluent, the White that their place atop the social pyramid is legitimate and must be protected by any means necessary. And no matter what they say they love him for it.

And that is why so much of the discussion surrounding the film has focused on its award-worthy acting or Hoover's sex life. A willful ignorance allows such a political monstrosity to be admired. From the beginning Hoover is cast positively as a much needed and tough organizer of law enforcement, a protege of Attorney General Palmer's raids against the violent radical terrorists of their day. And true to the form and function of mainstream media those dissidents are given no context, description, or honest reflection. The Bolsheviks, anarchists and labor movement activists are barely mentioned and only at all to give Hoover legitimacy in his own desire to catalogue and monitor every citizen and then to deport, falsely imprison or assassinate those he deems threats to national security. And, of course, only their violence is real violence. Certainly the violence of capital exploitation and imperial wars are not called into question. No. Only the actions of enemies are questionable. What ultimately stands unchallenged is the righteous attempt, even if imperfectly executed, of the state and Hoover to bring order to police work and to a society destined by the divine to be supremely White and capitalist.

“The Bolsheviks, anarchists and labor movement activists are barely mentioned and only to give Hoover legitimacy.”

So for White radicals the film has only brief mention and dismissal. Black activists don't even appear. But why should they? The White radicals, like Emma Goldman, only briefly hit the screen to justify today's hostility to immigrants and so-called anti-terrorism campaigns. Goldman's on-screen deportation and the only passing reference to the assassinated anarchists Sacco and Vanzetti, who are never mentioned by name only as the "two Italians," serve only to convey legitimacy to Hoover in the past and the targeted killings, detentions and anti-immigration policies of the present. Deport those you cannot kill. That completed there is no need then to even reference, for instance, Hubert Henry Harrison or Marcus Garvey both of whom were early targets of Hoover and called by him, "race pimps" and "notorious Negro agitator(s)."

And because of an otherwise inexplicable need of this film to dwell on the mundane aspects of mundane aspects of Hoover's career the film allows itself to simply run out of time. So countless minutes spent on the Lindbergh baby kidnapping - without any discussion of Charles Lindbergh's beliefs in eugenics and Nazism - along with an intimate look at Hoover's personal life with his mother and his male companion assure that we get nothing of his concern over The Black Panther Party, or the surveillance and deportation of people like Claudia Jones and C.L.R. James, or culpability in the killings of say, Malcolm X and Fred Hampton (to name but a few). Dr. King only appears as pornographic background, his politics and assassination apparently irrelevant. And the word "counterintelligence" is mentioned in the film only once but not as Hoover's Counter Intelligence Program and certainly with no discussion of that program’s continued impact. So, therefore, no mention could then be made of Hoover's direct involvement in framing Black radicals for crimes they did not commit but for which some still suffer incarceration, right now, in 2011.

Particularly at a time of expanded police and military power and the deep charm of an imperial president this film reads as a violent assault against history meant to terrorize today's audiences by reinforcing either an irrational fear of the state or an equally irrational justification for what the state does out of self-preservation. It is no mere historical drama, it is a blatant warning for today. Immigrants and radicals are to be monitored, deported, killed or imprisoned and it is all for the greater good that is the United States.

For Black Agenda Radio, I'm Jared Ball. Online check us out at BlackAgendaReport.com.

Dr. Jared A. Ball is author of I Mix What I Like! A Mixtape Manifesto and is an associate professor of communication studies at Morgan State University. He can be reached via IMIXWHATILIKE.ORG.


More Stories


  • Pindiga Ambedkar , Arnold August
    Were Canadian Elections Existential in the Context of US-Canada Tensions?
    23 Jul 2025
    Interview with Arnold August, writer, political commentator, and analyst of the North American continent, on the political situation in Canada and its relationship to the US.
  • Margaret Kimberley, BAR Executive Editor and Senior Columnist
    Black Agenda Report At the Belt and Road Journalism Forum in China
    23 Jul 2025
    The 2025 Belt and Road Journalists Forum in China was an opportunity for Black Agenda Report to join an international group of journalists working to promote meaningful dialogue on world issues.
  • Editors, The Black Agenda Review
    SPEECH: Why We Use Violence, Frantz Fanon, 1960
    23 Jul 2025
    “This violence of the colonial regime…irreparably provokes the birth of an internal violence in the colonized people.”
  • Ann Garrison, BAR Contributing Editor
    Rwanda: Victoire Ingabire Denied Bail, Remanded to Prison
    23 Jul 2025
    Rwandan opposition leader Victoire Ingabire’s arrest belies Rwanda’s pretense to liberal democracy and its pretense to self-defense in DRC.
  • Anthony Karefa Rogers-Wright
    If We Respond to the Genocide in Palestine the Same Way We’re responding to the Climate Crisis, We Should Expect Many More Loss of Lives
    23 Jul 2025
    The climate crisis and genocide in Gaza share the same root: capitalism’s willingness to sacrifice the masses. Yet, the institutions built to resist have instead become accomplices.
  • Load More
Subscribe
connect with us
about us
contact us