Trackbacks & Pings

1. Ultrabrown - The CNN clip on 11 Jul 2007 at 3:49 pm

   [...] the first third of the segment CNN ran last night on the Simpsons / 7-Eleven controversy (thanks, tstorm). We’re working on getting the rest [...]

2. ATR 76 - Apu from The Simpsons - 07/24/2007 - Submit an Audio Comment: 206-203-3983 at Addicted to Race - beyond diversity buzzwords on 24 Jul 2007 at 11:09 am

   [...] CNN misses the point of the 7-Eleven Apu Simpsons controversy [...]

3. Addicted to Race 76: Apu from The Simpsons at Race in the Workplace - how race and racism influence our working lives on 24 Jul 2007 at 11:09 am

   [...] CNN misses the point of the 7-Eleven Apu Simpsons controversy [...]

4. Addicted to Race 76: Apu from The Simpsons at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture on 24 Jul 2007 at 11:09 am

   [...] CNN misses the point of the 7-Eleven Apu Simpsons controversy [...]

5. Harry Mok » Simpsons 7-Eleven Apu promos criticized on 07 Aug 2007 at 5:36 pm

   [...] Here’s an analysis of the CNN report at Racialicious. [...]

Comments

1. Ananse wrote:

   Zahn’s out the door soon, so don’t expect too much now. What should be interesting is the dsconnect given her attempt to focus on the issue of racism.

   Carmen or Manish: I’d consider making both an email and phone call *today* to Zahn’s shown & Anderson Cooper on this one, referencing this exact post and suggesting names of East/South Asian activists and a 7-11 franchise owner that can speak on “both sides” of this issue.

   Also point out that *no* “Simpsons Movie” reps were engaged in dialogue with the communities about this promotion in advance and you think they should be contacted to speak to you now as well.

   Posted 11 Jul 2007 at 10:00 am ¶

2. B wrote:

   “If a gunman holds up a 7-Eleven store and sees a South Asian man behind the counter, and thinks of him as “just an Apu” instead of an actual human being with friends and family and hopes and dreams and feelings, it makes it that much easier to pull the trigger, doesn’t it?”

   Very well-put and to the point. Great post.

   Posted 11 Jul 2007 at 10:05 am ¶

3. Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

   Ananse – great idea.

   Sreenath Sreenivasan, founder of SAJA and journalism professor at Columbia, comes to mind immediately.

   And for that matter, they should have had Manish on the panel. He was clearly well-versed in the issues and available and in NYC.

   Posted 11 Jul 2007 at 10:39 am ¶

4. Wendi Muse wrote:

   yeah…it’s a bit *strange* that they didn’t have any people on the panel who had experience addressing/discussing/researching portrayals of people of south asian descent in the media…

   it’s also funny that they dragged out the token black republican to weigh in on issues of race.

   Posted 11 Jul 2007 at 11:17 am ¶

5. jessabean wrote:

   Great post! I didn’t see the show, though now I would be interested if anyone finds a video clips.
   For the Simpsons show itself to propogate stereotypes is one thing, albeit not a good one. Unfortunately this is all too common in entertainment, and we have the choice not to watch stupid or racist TV shows.

   But to force 7-11 employees to participate in a promotion that demeans a particular culture…well, that’s beyond messed up. Unbelievable!

   Posted 11 Jul 2007 at 11:27 am ¶

6. tstorm wrote:

   The video is up on cnn now (minus the discussion). Here: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/07/10/chernoff.kwik.mart.cnn

   I’ll also put it up on YouTube and I’d be happy to email it to anyone who wants it.

   Check out Chernoff’s transition here:

   “This is an absolute embarrassment for our company,” writes Haitayan. “I am not willing to accept to be compared to Apu. I cannot imagine any store willing to re-brand to Kwik-E Mart, even for a day.”

   Fact is, though, half of the re-branded 7-Elevens are owned by Indian-Americans, like Andy Chaudhari in Manhattan. He and other 7- Eleven franchisees from India say they’re fellow immigrants need to lighten up.

   Chernoff completely passes over Haitayan’s comment, which is about the quality of the depiction, and counters it with the illusion that all other 7-Eleven-owning Indian-Americans are saying it’s okay.

   I also can’t help but pick on Chernoff’s comment that the boxes of cereal are literally flying off the shelves. No. If they were literally doing so, they’d have wings. His whole world seems to be a cartoon.

   Posted 11 Jul 2007 at 11:57 am ¶

7. Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

   > I also can’t help but pick on Chernoff’s comment that the boxes of cereal are literally flying off the shelves. No. If they were literally doing so, they’d have wings. His whole world seems to be a cartoon.

   LOL!

   There’s also little distinction between “Indian-Americans” and “immigrants.” Chernoff seems to think all desis are immigrants, and that none could possibly be born and raised here.

   Posted 11 Jul 2007 at 12:13 pm ¶

8. susanc wrote:

   I lost what little faith I had in Paula Zahn a long time ago. Her panel of “experts” is usually pretty lame, if you ask me. A particularly lame panel she had that stands out in my memory was the episode about Asian Americans in America. Her panel consisted of Asian American CNN anchors!

   And maybe it isn’t so much a question of not being able to find a South Asian activist, academic, writer, or politician, but of finding one who is willing to appear on her program!

   Posted 11 Jul 2007 at 12:15 pm ¶

9. dnA wrote:

   Carmen,

   The CNN transcript is here.

   http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/10/pzn.01.html

   Posted 11 Jul 2007 at 12:15 pm ¶

10. Sewere wrote:

    RE: The panel, this is exactly what James and Kai were alluding to in the comments on Manish’s post… Every god-forsaken dialogue on race would revert (and regress) to a conversation on Black and White panelists to validate the racism. Like y’all already said, why in the name of all that is good, do they not have South-Asian (Indian, Pakistani, Sri-Lankan etc) folks on the panel? I can maybe (and this is a stretch) see the need to have a black panelist who can *add to the discussion but why do you need someone white to validate racism, when there are POC better able to articulate their experiences?

    *Not to grant legitimacy but to highlight the manner in which caricatures of POC are similarly created to sell products.

    Posted 11 Jul 2007 at 1:10 pm ¶

11. tstorm wrote:

    The YouTube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AazTgw8hsQQ

    Posted 11 Jul 2007 at 2:08 pm ¶

12. Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

    Awesome – thanks tstorm!

    Posted 11 Jul 2007 at 2:54 pm ¶

13. Manish wrote:

    Thanks, tstorm. That’s just one third the broadcast segment, which was 9 minutes long. I’m working on getting the full segment online…

    Posted 11 Jul 2007 at 2:57 pm ¶

14. eric daniels wrote:

    I am not surprised that that Traynham won’t coment on this issue, he is a typical black republican and has swallowed the pill whole. The Kiwi stores and the racism implied can’t be denied but people think South Asians won’t say anything because in their minds Indians are invisible to the majority society except in the computer and medical industries. Race dicussions on television is becoming more innane by the moment.

    Many people are just tired of talking about race in any serious way and want to ‘get on’ with the colorblind society and if ‘those people’ would just shut up we would all get along. Look folks, if you want any serious discussion of issues regarding race you will be waitng a long time and everybody has their tribal BS like Traynham’s “I’m not Indian-American”. how about dude, I don’t like that crap becasue I know how it feels when they do it to Black Folks.

    What is the old saying “Think Locally act Globally”.

    Posted 11 Jul 2007 at 4:06 pm ¶

15. anantha wrote:

    From Paula Zahn’s Cheshire Cat-like grin as she introduced it, to Allan Chernoff’s overly-jaunty tone in the voice-over, it was clear that the message was: these hypersensitive desis need to lighten the fuck up.

    Glad that someone else felt the same way too. All through the segment, I was waiting for something positive to come through, but no! Am I wrong in assuming that the MSM would highlight every instance of outrage positively and not pooh pooh it, especially when there is a chance that a substantial percentage of a certain minority group in the country might be sharing that outrage?

    Posted 11 Jul 2007 at 4:16 pm ¶

16. Kent Brockman wrote:

    Apu is Pakistani, not Indian. If you’re going to protest, at least get it right!

    Posted 11 Jul 2007 at 4:22 pm ¶

17. kaystar wrote:

    “If a gunman holds up a 7-Eleven store and sees a South Asian man behind the counter, and thinks of him as “just an Apu” instead of an actual human being with friends and family and hopes and dreams and feelings, it makes it that much easier to pull the trigger, doesn’t it?”

    Actually, if the South Asian man behind the counter is “just an Apu” then the gunman would imagine him as a jovial guy with a beautiful wife and several kids, who is usually very moral – except for the tryst with the icee lady. He’s also the neighborhood “go-to” guy. He knows everything. Do you even watch the show? Apu’s character is fleshed out a little, you know.

    Furthermore, does context ever matter? Case in point. I’m an African-American. I get upset over certain sterotypes, but not on MAD TV or South Park because they are lampoons. NO ONE on those shows is portrayed super-positively, or even “normal” and everyone pretty much gets lambasted. I consider the Simpsons a sort of lampoon as well, so it doesn’t bother me. Of course the caricatures are two dimensional – it’s a cartoon! Not a sappy sweet “don’t you wish you were them” Disney-esque cartoon, but an animated version of “Married With Children”.

    Furthermore, the Simpsons is one of the longest-running shows in history. Has the South Asian community been upset all of this time? I’m not being facetious, I really don’t know and personally haven’t heard anything. Going back to context, if the South Asian community hasn’t been upset over this particular character because of its presence in a cartoon that is basically satire anyway, then why get upset now? Are these people who watch the show and don’t like how the particular character is portrayed or is this a knee-jerk reaction to a South Asian character who owns a convenience store?

    Does it matter at all that the South Asians who actually own convenience stores and are converting them to Kwik-E-Marts are raking in the dough from virtually free advertising? Maybe some of the people from South Asia are proud of the fact that they could immigrate to America and establish a reputation as BUSINESS OWNERS. Like I said, I’m African-American. I would pay someone to sterotype us as industrious business people.

    I think that there is a difference between a portrayal of a person from a certain culture and a racist portrayal of a person from a certain culture. Perhaps we should discuss whether something that may seem sterotypical is actually offensive before we jump on the racist bandwagon.

    Posted 11 Jul 2007 at 4:58 pm ¶

18. georgia wrote:

    I can see how Apu could make an Indian American feel uneasy, but I don’t think that Apu is a completely negative character as the CNN segment made him seem.

    I also don’t think that Apu makes any difference to the people who rob 711s and shoot the staff, and the idea that his existence puts Indians in danger is ridiculous.

    Posted 11 Jul 2007 at 5:05 pm ¶

19. tstorm wrote:

    I think kaystar makes some great points about the Simpsons. Perhaps we should have a larger discussion about race and humor, which is a complex issue. Just as we don’t call Stephen Colbert a conservative bastard, it would be a little misguided to label all comedy that deals with race issues as racist. The problem is that American humor is so full of irony and sarcasm that it often teeters right on the edge of being offensive. We’ve certainly seen a few instances of comedians crossing the line (Michael Richards, Rosie O’Donnel, Chelsea Handler & Robin Williams — the list goes on and on).

    What about Family Guy episodes? Dave Chapelle? Borat? And the Simpsons? There’s a spectrum here. And it’s worth discussing what’s appropriate and what’s not.

    Of course, you also have to consider the audience. The Simpsons, for instance, is not a kids’ show for good reason. And even adults can sometimes miss satirical portrayal. Remember the Archie Bunker phenomenon, where in people end up liking the guy who we’re all supposed to be laughing at, not with.

    I agree that The Simpsons has succeeded in making Apu a more fleshed out character over the years. The issue for me is not so much The Simpsons’ portrayal, although certainly it has some problems: if we’re ever laughing at him because of the racial stereotypes he embodies, that’s an issue; and having a white guy do his voice is another.

    But I think the current problem is two-fold. First, it’s definitely crossing the line for the Simpsons Movie promotion to turn real-life 7-Elevens (owned and/or operated by South Asians) into Kwik-E-Marts. We have trouble with drawing the line between fiction and reality in this country, and as you say, kaystar, the caricatures are two dimensional. So this whole Kwik-E-Mart gimmick seems like it’s inevitably going to lead to the South Asian workers at the chosen 7-Elevens dealing with some racism.

    The second problem is CNN’s (and MSM on the whole) treatment of the story. As people have already pointed out, everything from the tone of the piece to the choice of panelists shows that CNN is pretty half-assed about their reporting here. I think one of the most damaging things you can do to the race dialogue is to pooh-pooh people’s concerns. (And of course the most common way to do that is to say, “see? These minorities over here don’t have a problem with it.”)

    Finally, though I definitely see your point, kaystar, when you say you would pay someone to stereotype you as industrious business people, I think there’s a can of worms there called positive stereotypes (like the “model minority”). Plus, I don’t know that 7-Eleven workers – or even 7-Eleven store owners – have much power in this society. So I’m not sure it’s as positive a stereotype as you make it sound by calling them “industrious business people.”

    Just some thoughts. . .

    Posted 12 Jul 2007 at 12:07 am ¶

20. gatamala wrote:

    CNN missed the point of news (see: Lou, Wolf’s broadcast of his laptop & that awful bucktooth Mr. Bentley character).

    It’s too much for CNN to consider the differing opinions among SOME immigrants and S Asian Americans. Perhaps the tokens they found could listen to their kids after a school day.

    kaystar – if the Simpsons producers were remotely concerned about fleshing out Apu’s character they would hire a writer/actor of Indian descent (who in lieu of “industriousness” dropped out of school to write for cartoons) and allow him (1) total creative control over the character and (2) to write Apu (& Manjula!)- themed episodes for ALL characters. If it’s funny (to some) now, imagine how the show would turn out with cleverly-crafted in-jokes!!!!

    Yes, many S Asian-Ams watch the show & find Apu irritating and offensive. Just because folks have a different view of Apu doesn’t mean they don’t watch the show. Apu makes me cringe (as do Hank Azaria’s blaccents) but I can cite chapter & verse of the Simpsons ;D.

    I can deal with racial-themed humor. I can’t deal with white writers/producers/directors viewing themselves as omniscient and normative. POCs can write for themselves AND whites (yellow for the Simpsons) too.

    That said…..I am so going to see this movie!

    Posted 12 Jul 2007 at 8:20 am ¶

21. Manish wrote:

    Here’s the full 9 minute segment with the panel discussion at the end:

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

    Working on getting a higher quality version.

    Posted 12 Jul 2007 at 9:50 am ¶

22. michelle wrote:

    This is a really great debate, and it raises some interesting questions.

    I have very ambivalent feelings toward the charcater of Apu. I think that he is a stereotype, but then, most of the characters on the Simpsons are stereotypes. They are not meant to represent real life. But if it is horribly offensive to South East Asian people, I will certaintly write a letter to Fox.

    And do we know for sure that there are no South East Asian writers working on the Simpsons?

    For one, I would not feel comfortable protesting Apu because I am not of Indian/Pakistani descent. Now, I am putting my cards on the table so that I can get some clarity on this issue. I think the feeling that I have is yes, I don’t like stereotypes of Black people, but I feel like I need an invitation to speak about issues concerning other “groups”. My fear is that just because something affects me as a Black person, it doesn’t necessarily translate to other “‘others”.

    And could class be an element of this discussion? For instance, I was not allowed to watch “Good Times” or “Sanford n Son”. My caretakers felt that it was detrimental to my image of Black people and that it glorified life in the ghetto (or junkyard). However, many Black people felt that those shows were not only funny, but accurately depicted life as they experienced it.

    Not every single Indian/Pakistani/South East Asian person is going to go to college, grad school and do post doc work. Some just want to open a 7-11, make some money, drive a mini-van and have a few kids. Perhaps, when viewed through that particular lens, Apu looks very different.

    Posted 12 Jul 2007 at 3:34 pm ¶

23. integrate me wrote:

    To the point mentioned in this graph:

    “If a gunman holds up a 7-Eleven store and sees a South Asian man behind the counter, and thinks of him as “just an Apu” instead of an actual human being with friends and family and hopes and dreams and feelings, it makes it that much easier to pull the trigger, doesn’t it?”

    Ludicrous. That gunman is a sociopath if they can’t make the distinction between a cartoon, who has friends and a family and feelings, and a real-live person who enjoys the same.

    As a human, who happens to be black, I think there are other more systemic issues worth your time, though I hope you wag your finger at the negative portrayal of Cletus the slack-jawed yokel, Lenny and Carl’s pseudo-homosexuality, Homer as the average idiot white man, etc. ad naseum

    Posted 12 Jul 2007 at 4:25 pm ¶

24. KXB wrote:

    I think there are 2 issues here – the character of Apu himself, and the promotional campaign. Apu started out way back in 1990 as a stereotype, but he is a fully fleshed out character. I’d argue that The Simpsons does a far better job at depicting and lampooning Indian/Hindu traditions than any TV with live actors.

    Other ethnic stereotypes on the show include the Bumblee Man (Mexican), Groundskeeper Willie (Scots), Krusty the Clown (self-hating, non-observant Jew).

    The promotional campaign is another matter. To ask shopkeepers to mimic the cartoon character is in poor taste and was a step too far.

    Michelle makes a valid point – there are some class issues among Indians (as there are with any ethnic group).

    Posted 12 Jul 2007 at 5:02 pm ¶

25. Yolanda Carrington wrote:

    Look folks—you don’t have to be South Asian yourself to give a shit about anti-South Asian racism. While one can debate on whether the character Apu is racist or mildly annoying, the 7-Eleven campaign is just shithouse racist. From where I sit, it ain’t a damn debate.

    Posted 12 Jul 2007 at 7:56 pm ¶

26. Manish wrote:

    Here’s a KPIX San Francisco TV story about the Simpson/7-Eleven issue.

    Posted 13 Jul 2007 at 12:55 am ¶

27. tstorm wrote:

    Well, that KPIX story doesn’t have the same sort of “isn’t this ridiculous” tone, but it has the same format (i.e. Some people are offended, but we found a lot of good Indians who aren’t.).

    I think Yolanda’s right about the campaign itself — it’s just plain racist. As Jean Kilbourne points out in her examination of women in the media, “the first step in justifying violence toward a human being is to see that person as an object or less than human.” Ludicrous though it may be, I think people (non-sociopathic people) might indeed end up seeing a South Asian convenience store worker as “just an Apu.” It’s not a rational process; it’s not a matter of someone saying, “hey, he looks like that stupid Apu guy from The Simpsons, let’s shoot him.” It’s the fact that this promotional campaign has made a cartoon store and a cartoon character reality, and in the process, it has turned the Indian or Pakistani clerks into cartoons — less than human.

    I also say amen to Yolanda’s comment that you “don’t have to be South Asian yourself to give a shit about anti-South Asian racism.” In fact, the ultimate goal of anti-racism training is to get everyone as angry about the racism as the groups targeted, no?

    That said, I’m still pretty interested in the issue of race and humor. Apu seems to me to be much more stereotypical than Groundskeeper Willie. And though the portrayal of Cletus certainly doesn’t help the cause of impoverished Appalachia, I don’t think anyone can claim that Homer is a stereotype of a white guy. I’m interested in unraveling this issue a bit so I can examine it with my students in my high school media literacy class.

    Posted 13 Jul 2007 at 11:40 am ¶

28. James wrote:

    Black people can be racist too I think people forget that. African Americans have their own racist biases against Asian Americans. I think black and white Americans believe they are the ONLY true Americans and that other people of colour are IMMIGRANTS and the OTHER. And I think that’s a serious problem. There SHOULD of been more Asian Americans on the panel.What the hell do black people or white people know about the Asian American experience? I lost a lot of respect for Paula Zahn. I heard her show has crap ratings and CNN is going to give her the boot soon anyhow.

    Posted 13 Jul 2007 at 11:47 am ¶

29. michelle wrote:

    “What the hell do black people or white people know about the Asian American experience?”

    Yolanda, I care a great deal about racism, sexism and homophobia. But it is comments like the above (from James) that make me reticent to be vocal without first being clear that I indeed “know what I am talking about”. It was stated earlier

    “Does it matter at all that the South Asians who actually own convenience stores and are converting them to Kwik-E-Marts are raking in the dough from virtually free advertising?”

    I think that kaystar has a small point here. Maybe, maybe, there is a critical mass of South East Asian business men and women who see this campaign as very profitable. I would hate to yell and scream about something that South East Asian people are profiting from. Then what does that make me in their eyes?

    I agree with most of the people on this post who have called out the campaign for the racism that it is. But does anyone else see the slippery slope here? I mean, what I see as racist comes from a very specific viewpoint, i.e. a person of color who was born, raised and well educated in America. Here’s the issue that I am trying to raise; Do I really qualify as an arbiter of all things racist? Or is the racism in question in part defined by the perceived victim of the perceived racism. Case is point, refer to debate about Marianne Pearl choosing Angelina Jolie to play her in a movie. Many people feel that because she was not born and raised in America, she has a completely different sensitivity to America’s racism.

    I guess, it is because I care a great deal about racism, and also relationships between blacks, browns, reds and yellows that I tread carefully over issues such as these.

    Tstorm, this is an ageless debate. You might want to start your students with an brief introduction to Comedia Del’Arte (sp?). It was one of the first documented uses of stock (stereotypical) characters to lambast groups of people. It was/is hilarious. At the time however, it was incredibly biting in it’s social commentary. Do the stock characters on the Simpson’s, the Dave Chapelle Show, the Family Guy claim this type of lineage of social commentary, or are they socially irresponsible? Is it soley in the eyes of the viewer, or is the proof in the change or discussions that those shows spark? I would love to know what your students think.

    Posted 13 Jul 2007 at 7:00 pm ¶

30. tstorm wrote:

    Good tips, Michelle. I’ll see what I can put together. You pose some great questions, some of which will be too sophisticated for my students, who have a pretty elementary understanding of race in our society.

    But with a lot of this race & pop culture stuff, the best instructional method is just to ask the questions and leave them open-ended. I try to get my students to understand that the knee-jerk reaction is to label the anti-race voice as oversensitive and excessively PC. “Don’t answer the questions immediately,” I tell them. “Just keep them in your head.” Many of these questions about race and culture operate like zen koans. If we can embrace the questions as much as or more than the answers, we start to change.

    That’s my high school teacher moment . . .

    Posted 15 Jul 2007 at 10:39 pm ¶

31. Manish wrote:

    Here’s an NDTV clip (one of India’s largest English news channels) on the same issue that’s a bit more balanced than the CNN one:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9XcZvh3n0Q

    Posted 16 Jul 2007 at 7:14 am ¶

32. Manish wrote:

    Another wrinkle: some of the paler 7-Eleven clerks at the Burbank location were made up in brownface, according to one report:

    http://www.movieweb.com/news/36/21036.php

    Still think this is innocuous?

    Posted 16 Jul 2007 at 8:03 am ¶

33. Manish wrote:

    Here’s a piece I wrote in the Guardian blog about this issue:

    http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/manish_vij/2007/07/the_apu_tragedy.html

    Predictably, the Brits love their Apu.

    Posted 16 Jul 2007 at 9:07 am ¶

34. michelle wrote:

    Manish,

    Your piece was great, thanks for the link. I also watched the link to the You Tube piece and you are right, it is more balanced in it’s reporting. I agree with everything in your article. Again, where I am uncomfortable is in the class distinctions that arise when viewing this issue.

    So, as a non-Indian person in America, should I not support 7-11, even ones owned by South East Asians? Because that is part of what resistance has meant in the past, economic boycotts. For instance, should we all (all of us enlightened people of different races) band together and boycott “Who’s Your Caddy”? Or, does that only serve to take money away from an underepresented ethnic minority in America? I don’t know, and perhaps you don’t either, but I am open to suggestions.

    Posted 16 Jul 2007 at 4:22 pm ¶

35. Manish wrote:

    There are just 15 days left in this promo and, as you point out, boycotting the South Asian-owned stores themselves doesn’t help minorities. But I’m not too happy with 7-Eleven Corp.

    The franchisees are putting bread on the table and in many cases doing well for themselves. It’s the American dream, more power to them. But the ones doing the Simpsons promotion specifically are polluting the commons– they get the direct financial benefit without bearing the diffuse cost of higher racism backed by a $xM promo campaign. Sort of like gangsta rap mavens.

    Posted 17 Jul 2007 at 1:09 am ¶

36. michelle wrote:

    Exactly like gangsta rap mavens. Exactly.

    Posted 17 Jul 2007 at 4:01 pm ¶

37. tstorm wrote:

    Just a quick follow-up in case anyone’s still looking at this thread. I put together a rough cut of a documentary with some thoughts on responsible racial humor. I’d like to make some changes to it eventually, and I’d appreciate any feedback I can get from the Racialicious community.

    Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCoEjtnihOY

    Posted 02 Aug 2007 at 8:24 pm ¶