Hello All,
Martin Kevorkian, in his book, Color Monitors: The Black Face of Technology in America has raised the aforementioned question, and I have to admit, it really made me think. Kevorkian opens his argument with many examples from films where black characters represented the “computer guy”. From here, Kevorkian explains that certain kinds of things always happened in these instances. For example, no matter how “skilled”, “intelligent”, or “talented” the character was supposed to be, the white characters always barked orders at the computer guy. Also, Kevorkian argues, that these African-American characters are also framed by two or more white characters. Most significantly, perhaps, the author mentions how in many instances, the computer work that the black characters do is for naught.
Kevorkian also talks about images of Africa are often juxtaposed with images of technology. He claims there is an inherently racist argument presented here, and it is essentially this: if technology can help the “Dark Continent”, it must be a powerful force. Also, The author explains how African Americans are often depicted as the face of Information Technology. One Dell advertisement shows a black guy next to a stack of servers I presume, and says something to the effect of, “This is Carl. There are a lot more where that came from.”
Later in the book Kevorkian talks about how many white people in the tech industry try to relate their situation to that of the American slaves. Their work is considered to be drudgery in many instances, and like their black counterparts, have little hope of actually running the business. While this is an isolated group, it is worth mentioning.
One of Kevorkian’s big arguments is that by putting the African American at the computer screen, he is “contained” and he is marginalized. White people fear technology, and they fear black people, Kevorkian argues, so to pit these two enemies against each other is kill two birds with one stone so to speak. While Kevorkian showed many such examples, from Die Hard (which I actually saw in theaters when I was 4 years old, strangely enough), Mission Impossible, Minority Report, Terminator 2 (which I also saw, when I was 7), and in a bunch of Michael Crichton adaptations, including Jurassic Park the Lost World, Outbreak, and others.
While Kevorkian supports his claims well, I’m not sure if I can accept all of these points. I think he ignored one major factor in talking about this trend in Hollywood to make the black guy the tech guy: audiences are uncomfortable with a movie full of white people. Also, I would argue that audiences are even more uncomfortable with movies full of black people. While Kevorkian just brushes over the idea, I think the pressure to put “positive” secondary black characters into movies and films is probably pretty strong. While race relations have gotten better in previous years, and more black people go to college now than before, I think many people want to see “positive” secondary black characters.
The other point Kevorkian didn’t adequately mention is whether the tough guy, anti-computer white hero contrasts with tough guy black heroes. In my experience watching action movies, I would argue that they operate pretty similarly. From Carl Weathers and Mr. T to Wesley Snipes to Will Smith, I see them sharing pretty similar characteristics with their white counterparts. Smith, though is a little different because he’s a good actor, and he’s able to convey a wider range of roles in addition to being a convincing tough guy.
Even when Kevorkian talks about a positive black character such as Morpheus from the Matrix, played by Laurence Fishburne, a very well-respected actor, the author tries to spin this in a negative light, because the character sacrifices himself in the end. Anyone familiar with the Matrix mythos can tell you there are all sorts of philosophical and religious ideas presented in the movie, and that the Morpheus character can be viewed as a type of Christ, where he teaches, and then dies for those he taught.
In the end, I have to say that Kevorkian makes some interesting points, and he had too many examples for me to dismiss his arguments. While he provided a framework for understanding this strange casting type of the black man as the tech expert, I don’t think he dealt adequately with the opposition. Had Kevorkian bring up the points I mentioned, I feel he would have had an airtight defense. Great read, nonetheless, and I’d recommend it highly.
