I know this is so 6 months ago, but…

by Carmen Van Kerckhove

I finally got around to watching George Takei’s response to Tim Hardaway’s homophobic comments, and it’s freakin’ hilarious! I know that the blogger behind gay persons of color took issue with Takei’s reference to Hardaway’s “smooth chocolatey head.” But I think that in this context, it was part of the objectification of Hardaway’s body, and really worked in poking fun at the whole situation. What do you think?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Comments

  1. Rage wrote:

    Thanks for sharing this – I hadn’t seen it before either, and as a huge Takei fan for all the work he’s supported over the decades, and for coming out so late in life, this is definitely interesting.

    Whose show was this part of? I wonder if it was one of those gag spots that are written for people on the late-night shows, or if Takei came up with it himself. For me – that would be the important question. If it was a Takei spot on his own, I would be really impressed – if it’s a gag… just curious about who did the writing.

  2. kim wrote:

    Rage:

    Sounded like Leno doing a wrap-up in the background, with the ‘here you go’ rising as the spot ended, and the audience applauded.

    So, I’m going with late-night skit.

    I loved it. For the objectification and the levity. Little heavy on the final statement, but , man, did that laugh thrill me.

  3. Lyonside wrote:

    It is a late night skit – good sleuthing, Kim! – Jimmy Kimmel, actually (have no idea what show he does).

    Pam’s House Blend posted a longer version (http://www.pamshouseblend.com/tag.do?tag=Tim+Hardaway) that showed Kimmel’s intro. One of the drawbacks of YouTube – not everyone feels the need to add credit, descriptions, full content, etc. for clips, so it truly is caveat emptor.

    I think the “objectification” was part of the humor: i.e. the knee-jerk homophobe reaction assumes not only that gays are some kind of a threat generally, but assumes that all gays are after the ‘phobe’s body and would make a move on them.

    Takei deliberately plays into those fears and makes them absolutely ridiculous. That fetishization of different ethnicities and body types that happens in the gay community (as well as the straight community) is an issue, but I think here it’s being exposed as an object of ridicule as much as Hardaway himself is.

  4. Lyonside wrote:

    Actually, here’s the more direct link (the other required a bit of scrolling):
    http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=800

  5. HighJive wrote:

    i believe the clip debuted on the jimmy kimmel show.

    to be honest, i find takei kinda pathetic. it seems that since he came out, he’s suddenly welcoming being the butt (no pun intended, honest!) of all gay jokes. his performance on the william shatner celebrity roast was downright creepy. he’s positioning himself as a gay pervert.

    but that’s just my opinion.

  6. merq wrote:

    I thought it was fairly obvious what Takei was trying to do with that one, so I’m not getting the “gay persons of color” blogger’s point.

    I laughed my ass off the first time I saw it. I think it’s absolutely priceless!

    HighJive:
    Interesting. I wasn’t aware of all this. Could you post a link to a transcript/video of Takei’s bit on the Shatner roast?

  7. ani wrote:

    Maybe he is a little pervy …. I mean it was Shatner after all….who wouldn’t want to say dirty things about him.

  8. Lyonside wrote:

    Ani: Didn’t see it, but it could also be a reflection of the cheesy/pervy vibes that were always a part of classic Trek (or innately Shatner – you decide).

    But it also feeds into the hoyay present in classic Trek as well, which may indeed have been what Takei was tapping into, consciously or not.

    In the interviews I’ve heard with Takei, he has a wicked sense of humor, so either way, I’m not surprised ;)

  9. Colin wrote:

    How is “smooth chocolatey head” racist in this context? Can someone help point this out?