Comments

1. Rob Schmidt wrote:

   Silverman started a dialog about race–specifically, about how racist she and her blackface bits are.

   Posted 02 Nov 2007 at 8:08 am ¶

2. atlasien wrote:

   Sacha Baron Cohen actually found a unique way to impersonate a black person for comedic effect without drawing on the legacy of blackface. Love him or hate him, it was very clever… it also raised the bar for other comedians.

   I’m not even going to watch that clip because I can’t stand Sarah Silverman. Even five seconds of her whiny voice is enough. Her whole routine is based on “I can get away with saying mean things because I’m so pretty, la la la”. She and Carlos Mencia should get together… and go away from television forever.

   Posted 02 Nov 2007 at 8:20 am ¶

3. Kai wrote:

   Good to see you here, Kevin! Rockin it.

   And hey while we’re at it: if Silverman uses “I love money” with a big nose to represent Jewish folks, then whom do you think is represented by “All your money are belong to us” with slanty eyes? Oh yes, another liberal blog does yellowface for absolutely no reason except that it’s cool to invoke racist stereotypes in a piece on global finance! I suppose that, when in doubt, do what that colonial-era-remnant rag The Economist does: turn to racist caricature as the best perceptual prism through which to interpret the movement of money. After all, that’s precisely why European folks came up with white racism in the first place.

   Oh racist humorist, you are so funny, you don’t even see that your own stale words and unconsciously-dishonest thoughts have become a labyrinth of broken mirrors and disconnected symbols in which the only joke is your own lost shivering soul.

   Peace.

   Posted 02 Nov 2007 at 8:49 am ¶

4. Morgan wrote:

   I am Jewish, and I find her offensive to everybody: Jews, Blacks, gays, lesbians, porn-stars, dogs. I don’t feel like her “comedy” starts any sort of dialog at all, the only people I know that actually like her show are proudly anti-PC white guys.

   Posted 02 Nov 2007 at 10:00 am ¶

5. Mike wrote:

   “Richard Pryor, Chris Rock, Dave Chappelle, Sacha Baron Cohen, among many others have all to varying degrees of success exploited racial/ethnic/religious stereotypes to get a point across. The difference”

   Sacha Baron Cohen? You put him in that catagory?

   Posted 02 Nov 2007 at 10:15 am ¶

6. Brian wrote:

   atlasien said, “Her whole routine is based on ”I can get away with saying mean things because I’m so pretty, la la la’.”

   BINGO. This is precisely why I can’t stand her. She’s not funny at all. Her whole act is based on her looks. If she didn’t play up the appeal of her cutesy “Gee whiz” faux-innocence appearance (complete with dressing down and “aw shucks” voice to make her seem more accessible), she’d never have scored a TV deal. I’d love the response to an unattractive person delivering the same material – they’d be crucified.

   Without the discrepancy between her cute l’il face and the shocking words that come out of it, her act is completely devoid of humor or social insight. I wish she’d go away already.

   Posted 02 Nov 2007 at 10:19 am ¶

7. lemure wrote:

   Ugh, I HATE this chick. She’s not funny, extremely offensive, useless and dating another annoying, unfunny, offensive douche, Jimmy Kimmel.

   Posted 02 Nov 2007 at 10:46 am ¶

8. squidfly wrote:

   Mike wrote:
   “Richard Pryor, Chris Rock, Dave Chappelle, Sacha Baron Cohen, among many others have all to varying degrees of success exploited racial/ethnic/religious stereotypes to get a point across. The difference”
   Sacha Baron Cohen? You put him in that catagory.

   Sacha Baron Cohen’s routine is a parody of the West Hounslow (UK) East Asian youth who have adopted the Black American Hip Hop affect.

   Pryor, Chappelle and Rock, deliver a unique world view, not based on explotation but on a Universal communal observation that actually unites everyone as true comedy should do. Silverman represents the (current) precocious, pseudo-Liberal Hipsterism of bogus inclusion. She uses her angry self hating personae to exclude everyone, except as Morgan stated “anti-pc white guys”.
   Her humor attracts the passive aggressive, becasue it is passive aggressive.
   She is quickly becoming the Limbaugh/O’Reilly/Coulter of comedy, opportunistic, sophomoric and offensive without any intellectual insight.

   Pryor, Chappele, Bruce, Carlin and Rock all have compassion and empathy for their subjects, Silverman does not.
   Placing her in the same category as these individuals is the mistake that so many people make when coming to her defense.

   Posted 02 Nov 2007 at 11:24 am ¶

9. Fiqah wrote:

   Jesus…

   Posted 02 Nov 2007 at 12:18 pm ¶

10. Kevin wrote:

    “Sacha Baron Cohen? You put him in that catagory?”

    Well, I did say to varying degrees of effect.

    Thanks Kai!

    I hadn’t seen that blog post. I don’t get what a poorly translated video game has to do with global finance either. I’m a gamer, and so I knew what that phrase was playing off of before I even followed the link, and really, that’s what makes it all the more offensive. It’s that whole ironic, insider joke thing that people use as a cover for racist acts. No one stops to think that, maybe, the reason this game became “iconic” in the first place is problematic. These are the same people that love to visit those sites with pictures of awkwardly translated Asian billboards and signs. I worked with ESL students for several years and it always makes me mad to see folks make fun of the difficulties translating from one completely different language to another. It’s the epitome of American/English speaking arrogance. I’d like to see this Pluto person translate English into Mandarin.

    Posted 02 Nov 2007 at 1:09 pm ¶

11. Logan wrote:

    In defense of Sarah Silverman, if you can call it this:

    She has no redeemable qualities on her show. None. I liken her to the characters of It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, another favorite of mine, who do such stupid things that you can’t help but laugh at them (among my favorites include putting a baby they found in a dumpster in blackface in order to try to get him to get baby modeling jobs as a minority baby).

    I think, in a sense, she’s trying to do the same thing with her show. Only someone who is so morally bankrupt as her, in the show’s context, would commit such an act. In effect, she’s so over the top that she isn’t a rolemodel, and she’s satirizes white people at the same time, who really aren’t that different. Her uses of blackface show that those who use it must be on some level morally bankrupt.

    Now, I’m probably giving her too much credit and she thought it’d be funny to go over the top, a very likely scenario. Plus, knowing the youth of America like I do, there will be a large portion who watch her show and think blackface is funny, which is the demographic she’s targeting. I think she is actually trying to make a point on an issue, but she’s still an ignorant idiot for how she goes about it.

    Posted 02 Nov 2007 at 2:15 pm ¶

12. Lyle wrote:

    While I agree with critisms of Silverman’s standup comedy, I actually thought there was more to this episode. Perhaps I’m adding unintended depth to the episode, but I saw a mocking of “Oppression Olympics” along with a parody of the idea that belonging to one minority gives you full insight into other minority groups’ experience.

    I agree with Logan, on her show there’s less of a “I’m so cute and outrageous” because her character comes off as emotionally stunted. I find myself enjoying her show because I don’t feel like I’m supposed to be laughing with her but finding her appalling and pitiful.

    In the blackface episode, the larger joke was that she went out on the street like that and was criticized by people for the racist display. However, she (as does the black man who dresses us as a Jewish stereotype) thinks that the verbal attacks she receives is are based in racism. For me the joke was about the simpleminded approach to racial issues, especially when the blackface crowd talked about wanting a dialouge about race.

    I’ve been surprised by Silverman’s show because I’ve actually found it to frequently have much more depth than Silverman’s comedy.

    Posted 02 Nov 2007 at 2:56 pm ¶

13. squidfly wrote:

    Sarah Silverman is too full of rage to be funny.
    She really wants to be Paris Hilton.

    and once again it’s disturbing when people find no problem with Blackface…no wonder we have Noose-amania.

    I also remember a couple of years ago when one of the networks was about to launch a HillBilly reality show, peolple were about to burn down Hollywood.

    Let’s see some Holocaust humor.

    Posted 02 Nov 2007 at 4:17 pm ¶

14. hoo_boy wrote:

    Sarah Silverman = Andy Kaufman

    The character she plays on her show isn’t “her”, but a hyperfictionalized, exaggerated, caricature of “her”.

    When she does her standup routine or public appearances, she sometimes is in character, sometimes is not– you’ll never know..

    Part of the shtick isn’t her “attractiveness”, it’s the contrast between what’s acceptable for a Jewish woman to say and do, given the expectations on “how one should look and sound”.

    The more you buy into the sterotype, the more ludicrous you recognize the attention-seeking, the comments, the persona, the ego, the more the context operates.

    Personally I’m not the biggest fan of her style– her abrut tone shifts too self-conscioussly quirky.– but she’s smart and knowing enough a writer and performer to drop clues for the audience where she’s going.

    Her humor is intended to provoke, offend, and confound (more the latter), and it’s a relief from the high-handed, cynical, nihilistic, or screaming in-your-face alternatives. So you’ll either get her and/or like her, or you won’t.

    She’s plain got contempt and scorn towards a society that takes its hardest to tackle subjects so seriously that it won’t discuss them at all.

    What convinced me: (1) her Chapelle Show note-for-note sketch parodies from a Jewish female perspective; (2) the extremes to which seemingly rational supporters of free speech and “leftiness” abandon logic and common sense in denonuncing her.

    So I balance one aspect of her persona against the bulk of her career dating all the way back to her well-publicized SNL stint and dramatic roles, and the positive celebs she hangs out with.

    Get her the hell away from the Jimmy Kimmel/Carson Daly machine, and watch her quality improve.

    While I don’t think certain portrayals should be off-limits, or denied some performers strictly because they lack they melanin or bloodline, I don’t want to see artists clearing their material for review in advance either. Let them claim responsibility and prosper or suffer accordingly.

    Posted 03 Nov 2007 at 1:23 am ¶

15. squidfly wrote:

    hoo_boy wrote:
    Sarah Silverman = Andy Kaufman.

    Once again you give her way too much credit. Blackface is and will always be an outward mocking of Black people. If you have any friends who are Black, ask them what they think of Blackface.

    If she’s that clever then why isn’t she more “Inventive” Instead of going back to mine this 250 year old trope? There is no “Healing” in Blackface. I fail to see what is so hard to understand.
    Once again, This has nothing to do with “Free Speech” Or being “PC” , that’s such a lazy excuse to justify a racist caricature that lies in the history of derogatory behavior. white people just jump like a flea has bitten them on the ass when they’re confronted about their intent, and questionable behavior regarding race. When whites defend Blackface it’s their perception of another inalienable right to say and do whatever they want being stripped from them, so as usual the phrases “PC and “Freedom of Speech” are thrown around. Questioning someone has nothing to do with being PC . Calling white people out on their Supremacy is a defense of “Freedom of Speech”. Since white Supremacy has and continues to dismiss those who oppose it.
    The exsistance of Blackface and it’s revival, is quite simple, white people find it funny, they love it, enjoy it, and want to participate in it. After Slavery white people found Blackface, empowering because their world was changing. The same can be said of todays Blackface revivalists, who are now discovering a world where skin privilege isn’t a guarantee of financial and physical security. When white people engage in Blackface, it’s their personal “Rage Against the Machine” .
    It’s the equivalent of Rudy Giuliani’s love of drag.

    hoo_boy wrote:
    While I don’t think certain portrayals should be off-limits, or denied some performers strictly because they lack they melanin or bloodline, I don’t want to see artists clearing their material for review in advance either. Let them claim responsibility and prosper or suffer accordingly.
    This is the most assinine defense I’ve read this week.

    It’s called “Love and Theft”-Eric Lott.

    Posted 03 Nov 2007 at 1:36 pm ¶

16. April wrote:

    Disgusting!

    Posted 04 Nov 2007 at 1:25 pm ¶

17. Quentin Ergane wrote:

    I can’t deal with her. I would have watched the clip, but I have seen enough of her. I decided I didn’t need the terrorism this moment.

    Silverman supporters remind me that anti-racism/white supremacy work is still needed, more than ever.

    Posted 04 Nov 2007 at 4:29 pm ¶

18. Ratrace wrote:

    Squidfly, damn! Great posts and replies. I was going to say something but you covered it all.

    Posted 04 Nov 2007 at 9:22 pm ¶

19. hoo_boy wrote:

    I’ll thankfully never have to defend any celebrity– that’s what their flacks get paid to do supposedly. I’m curious, however: I zeroed in on Silverman’s ethnic shtick, as an important part of what’s going on with her character on the show versus her real-life persona. on purpose. First, I think there’s a double standard that applies to a woman that wouldn’t apply to a man (”she’s too angry to be funny”? compared to, say, what male?) Second, any discussion of a Jewish entertainer who defies convention on this space seems to provoke calls of “white power privilege” or the like without being called or checked on it, especially in light of the earlier “South Park” and “Boondocks” discussion.

    Since I still don’t know the whereabouts regarding the state of political correctness versus political expediency (I suspect the latter has a larger population anyway), I just can’t help anyone there. I also rarely make any debate about “freedom of speech” for one simple reason: too few people understand the nature of their own obligations and responsibilities attached to that “right” before they begin complaining about others’.

    So right here and now, I’m only going to admit to a “Hillary”: I confess that I understand what Silverman is up to, find parts of it funny, parts of it disturbing, parts of it spot on, while disagreeing with parts of it, and still supporting her ability to do it as I would any artist or performer. Unlike Hillary, I’m not as bendy in my articulation, so I have no need to defend a position I’m proud to actively exercise every opportunity I get. More complex ones flow as well…

    I’m not keen on describing the logic of others as lazy. I’m saddened when I hear things like the connection between a “Blackface epidemic” and “Noosemania”, or when there’s no distinction made between the offensive and subversive or transgressive– and that which is intended to truly harm any group isn’t equally and vigorously denounced with the same fervor by those who’ve fallen victim to such attacks themselves.

    I don’t defend the former, but do know that it holds shock value, perverse appeal, and taboo messages. It’s never ok in *any* context, huh? Then let’s stop talking about it entirely. That’ll make it go away. No depictions from anyone, no discussions, no portrayals– it’s strictly off limits entirely.

    So be bold, stand rigid, stomp the perils of blackface out. While doing so, treat the knuckleheads on campus who don’t know what they’re doing the same as those who do. Treat the performers make a statement against as those making one for. And make sure that you only find an acceptable roster of people that display certain desired traits when representing certain views for good measure. Otherwise all bets are off. Then by the time you’re done whittling everything down, there should be, say, only one acceptable means to ever discuss any given subject.

    Now doesn’t that just guarantee no other avenues of subversive or transgressive expression will ever arise beyond the original intended meaning? That’s the ideal method of “discussion” or “dialogue” in my book. Repeat after me: “Keeping things silent keeps things safe”.

    Blackface remains a bothersome thing, but like any bothersome thing, I don’t hit the panic button each time. I want to look at the context first. If you don’t, it only serves to reinforce the notion in society’s minds of “paranoid opportunism”, the idea that you’re hard at work looking for self-fulfilling examples of the very bogeyman that plagues you- but not others.

    So check, serious problem with blackface, nooses, and other symbols that are mucking up the landscape and it’s time to ask what to do silence them, reclaim them, more ideas… I think calling them out for what they are, raising public ridicule and scrutiny, but also examining self attitudes are part of the solution.

    I don’t know if “the symbol problem” however, is one of reemergence, or if it’s one that never went away, or a new generation is striking back at the elders… or there’s simply more attention to weird stuff that never stopped happening. I’m equally sensitive, however, to the trigger fingers of the watchers as much as their targets, and don’t think it always be a “one-note” approach to make people think.

    But you don’t want to hear that. Nah, too many words and too complicated a position. Much easier to say support the nasty comic and defend the offensive practice by extension with free speech and anti-PC stuff. Whew, much simpler…

    Posted 04 Nov 2007 at 9:34 pm ¶

20. luckyfatima wrote:

    sasha baron cohen is extremely offensive

    Posted 05 Nov 2007 at 1:32 am ¶

21. imdeep wrote:

    LuckyFatima: I agree with you.

    In the movie “Borat” especially, I noticed an annoying smugness, moral tone, and level of cruelty to his humor, but have found it in his cable show, and gay character in “Ricky Bobby”.

    He torments his targets. It’s a crime to be clueless in his view, so he picks on people who are most clueless about culture and the world and exploits that by just piling it on. And he’s not doing justice to whatever stereotype he’s portraying either to gain entry into those worlds that would normally be closed to him or other groups, since there’s no humanity invested in these characters.

    Same with SBC, I’m not a Silverman fan, but I don’t dislike her a person– I’ve never met her, so I can’t prejudge her right, only judging their work.

    With SS, I just think she’s too obvious in her approach and tries too hard to shock. If she put her mind to it, though, she *could* be her generation’s Mort Sahl. She doesn’t pull punches on the social issues, but she plays too much now to one crowd. There’s an interesting confrontational/confessional quality to her that’s refreshing in some ways.

    I see her still trying to find her voice, and hope she does for her own sake. I recall other comics needing more than a few tries before this was so…

    Posted 05 Nov 2007 at 9:17 am ¶

22. squidfly wrote:

    hoo_boy wrote:

    Maybe you’ve been missing all the posts on this site reporting on the Blackface/Noose epedemic sweeping College campuses.

    I waiting for Silverman to mix a little “OJ” with her Blackface.

    Posted 06 Nov 2007 at 11:19 am ¶

23. imdeep wrote:

    “All or nothing” or “weighing the context” however painful. Either choice involves something difficult when it comes to “the blackface issue”. It’s a complicated matter for enough parties without muddying further by equating it to every other racial and ethnic matter on the table– or overlooking complicity where its due.

    Main argument boils down to this: blackface is “our” dirty laundry in the US, our negative stereotype, and we don’t want anyone else touching it ever. Realistically, see how long a taboo has ever been respected.

    Main problem is this: we’ve made “facing” abstract, worrying more about the makeup and less about the minstrelry that gave rise to and underscored the impressions left by the cork long after whites (and blacks) put it one by choice or force respectively. That minstrelry continues in many forms and gets a pass more than this symbolic reminder. I’d like to see both lose their potency by seeing something better.

    Second problem: If “facing” as a concept truly is a problem, it needs a better definition once and for all. Any portrayal of a certain race or ethnicity by another not of that race or ethnicity that’s not tied to a physical act of changing their skin or acting in a minstrel-like manner makes some groups, works, etc. more suspect than others without any objectivity or means to gauge intent, merit, or value of the work.

    Two examples to consider

    (a) King Chulalongkorn (Rama V)’s play “Ngo Pa”. Old Thai play from the 1800s where the actors darken their skin to play the Semang (negritos). I’ve seen it once, and it threw me for a loop.

    (b) Arthur “Dooley” Wilson, who played “Sam” in Casablanca. After earning his start in black minstrel theater, he earned his nickname by performing in whiteface as a singing Irishman. He never knew how to play piano either…

    Third problem: There’s also inherent potential to taint everything with a bias of “brownfacing”, “redfacing”, “yellowfacing”– yet strangely no “whitefacing”– before weighing the actual work in question or to associate anyone affiliated with the work of such acts without actually defining what is inherently “brown”, “red”, “yellow” or “black” in character, act, though, or deed. It will either get worse over time or come to a head. I hope neither will occur if something better comes along.

    I’m not keen on the rash of incidents that seem to pop up on campuses and elsewhere– but I’ll say it again– I don’t think what’s happening is new, merely that it’s been underreported. Thanks to online tech and heightened awareness among a wider range of people, there’s greater willingness to discuss and challenge the underlying issues represented by the frequency of episodes you’re seeing. I’m upset, but I don’t panic because what had been long-held rituals and attitudes are finally seeing the light of day.

    So no, rather than turning a blind eye and suppressing, sometimes shocking satirical jolts are needed, however painful. And no, I may not like the messenger or approach, but I’ll appreciate the effort when I don’t have to make an effort to detect the distinction. None of the above remains difficult to grasp for me, no.

    And thanks for the points you so artfully raised Squidfly. Definitely keep swinging and you’ll land something eventually– maybe even that internship you’re craving on Silverman’s show…

    Posted 06 Nov 2007 at 6:15 pm ¶

24. Orville wrote:

    Sara Silverman is not funny she’s just a racist. And although Silverman likes to play up the fact she’s considered “attractive” by Western society’s standards. I just cannot take Silverman seriously at all. Silverman to me seems to try too hard to be as offensive as possible. When Chris Rock makes jokes he has a social commentary behind it. Silverman doesn’t have that kind of “intelligence” in her comedy. Silverman jsut wants to shock people she has zero veracity her comedy is garbage.

    Posted 06 Nov 2007 at 10:49 pm ¶

25. squidfly wrote:

    imdeep wrote:
    “All or nothing” or “weighing the context” however painful. Either choice involves something difficult when it comes to “the blackface issue”. It’s a complicated matter for enough parties without muddying further by equating it to every other racial and ethnic matter on the table– or overlooking complicity where its due.

    It’s not that complicated, it’s simple really.
    Blackface is insulting and offensive. Take a poll of your favorite African American friends and ask them what they really feel when they see these images.

    Oh and you forgot to mention Micky Mouse as one of the first Blackface cartoons.

    And thanks for the points you so artfully raised Squidfly. Definitely keep swinging and you’ll land something eventually– maybe even that internship you’re craving on Silverman’s show…
    Thank you, I’m flattered you bothered to read it.

    Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 12:59 am ¶

26. squidfly wrote:

    imdeep wrote:
    And thanks for the points you so artfully raised Squidfly. Definitely keep swinging and you’ll land something eventually– maybe even that internship you’re craving on Silverman’s show…

    P.S.
    Rudy Giuliani’s looking for a few good soldiers…in Blackface of course…

    Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 1:18 am ¶

27. Avi wrote:

    So Carmen, this is an interesting and well needed blog. Satire is a difficult medium and should be looked at critically. I think it’s especially concerning when what is being satirzed ends up being unintentionally reinforced. One good example is ‘The Office.’ I think it’s a great show because it reflects upon the current, more subtle forms of racism that boss ‘Michael’ embodies. The problem is that, since the show ends up humanizing Michael and sympathizing with him, it could, help in making subtle racism acceptable.

    So, we must look at satire critically and assess whether or not it is helping or hindering the situation. Still, in my mind, you have very much mis-interpreted Sarah Silverman’s Blackface episode and I urge you and most other commenters here to re-evaluate the episode. It’s very obvious to me that Silverman is satirizing the idea that dressing up as something as horrific as Blackface could work toward a positive dialogue about race. The section of the show you quoted makes this most obvious. The liberal Blackfaced people protesting outside the police station are the SOURCE of Silverman’s criticism. They are (rightly) portrayed as a mindless mob of privileged white people who are associated with the “Save Africa” crowd.

    The endings of all Sarah Silverman episodes are clearly not meant to be taken literally. The fact that she says she’s the most open-minded person demonstrates this.

    I just graduated from a University where a student dressed as Blackface for Halloween and flaunted the pictures afterwards. This unspeakable act was almost completely condoned by the liberal white student government who used some of the same stupid arguments that Silverman is MAKING FUN OF. That’s why, though satire can be dangerous, I think this episode was actually a positive one since it addresses a problem (white “liberals” who don’t understand their own power and privilege).

    Some of you don’t think Silverman is “intelligent” enough to make social commentary. Well, all I can say is that this is a bit strange.

    Posted 10 Nov 2007 at 5:36 pm ¶

28. Wow. wrote:

    Sarah Silverman is not funny, she still wont go away.

    I seen a whole episode of her before, it was so childish and unfunny I think it was the most lame humor I ever seen.

    Posted 24 Nov 2007 at 11:48 am ¶

29. PawntoKingsRook wrote:

    Lets mock people and flaunt taboos, adopt a mock naivete, think ourselves clever, and call it a “dialogue”, “art”, “catharsis”, or worse, call it “funny”.

    But then, making people laugh is hard work. Racial hacking is easy.

    Posted 24 Nov 2007 at 11:21 pm ¶

30. Ruins Vileside, Etc. wrote:

    What do people think about Darius James posing in blackface for the cover of his novel, Negrophobia, or Spike Lee using blackface in Bamboozled? Is there ever a context in which blackface can be dealt with intelligently? Decades ago, while Ted Danson was dating Whoopi Goldberg, he appeared at the Friar’s Club in blackface. I recall seeing it on TV as a teen; I also recall feeling embarrassed at Danson’s lack of judgment.

    Just now, I googled the subject. This was Goldberg’s defense:

    “We’ve gotten a lot of hate mail. He’s been called a ‘n____r lover’ and people have said that if we had a kid they hoped he or she died. We decided to go over the top with it. If you think he’s a ‘n____r lover,’ here he is in blackface.”

    Darius James argues that racist stereotypes are corruptions of Yoruba gods, and that the gods are pissed off. He feels that, by using racist images in vengeful ways, he is channeling the outrage of his African gods.

    The prospect of using this kind of imagery seems too empty when not being fueled by inner outrage. The idea of a privileged Caucasian using blackface to be ironic seems bankrupt to me — it isn’t that person’s irony — yet certain comedians feel compelled. One might long to be black, but that doesn’t mean one should co-opt charged racist imagery/language simply because it elicits charged reactions.

    Sandra Bernhard has convinced herself she’s so black she has the right to mock Mariah Carey for being biracial without ever realizing Carey’s been grappling with that for most of her life, however shallow she might seem.

    Questions of identity can be shattering: my girlfriend was raised to think of herself as Native American and “a full-blooded Cherokee” until the day she turned thirty and learned her father was black. She’d grown up in South Florida in a white suburb among people who scolded her in high school for dating a young man from Mexico. These people had claimed her racially: to them, she was a beige shade of white, and so she seemed to herself.

    Immediately after she found out the truth, she quit her job as a librarian, gave up her apartment and began living in a boat. It took her a year to renegotiate her place in the world.

    Even I know a bit about this, having grown up hearing that family on my mother’s side had died in a concentration camp. I’d grown up thinking I was the offspring of survivors of persecution, only to learn — decades later — there had been plantation owners who kept slaves on my father’s side. I was the racist oppressor as well as the oppressed — a disgusting thing to learn so late in the day.

    If only. No matter.

    These issues are too complex for shallow commentary. I would argue that Chappelle can pull it off because he’s inhabits white culture already, whereas Silverman visits black culture on Easter weekends. Chappelle has both cultures locked inside him, whereas Silverman is slightly curious about how that might feel. The first is an exorcism, the second, a detached experiment. The first has passion, the second, vicarious window-shopping fascination.

    Apologies if I’ve gone on too long. I haven’t slept.

    Posted 10 Dec 2007 at 3:44 pm ¶

31. Conscious wrote:

    She’s terrible. She’s not deep in the least. She has no intension to affect change through her unfunny pieces. It’s obvious why there was no mention of this ridiculous episode. I’m just seeing this today and had it been someone else it would be plastered all over the news. She can go kick rocks for all I care. She has issues as do many that watch this and make statements co sign for her talentless pointless shtick. I’ve given her too much energy already by watching the clip on comedy central, scrolling down to read these comments and then commenting myself. But, it is what it is. I’m not upset about it. It’s just life.

    Posted 15 Apr 2008 at 11:32 pm ¶

32. esmeralda wrote:

    this post really intrigued me because i do find sarah silverman very funny and at the same time i feel her humour, especially on the subject of race, occasionally does come from the wrong place. i’m not some anti-PC crazy, but i think she does sometimes succeed at using race humour well, as in the “chink” joke. with the issue of blackface, though, i thought it was handled carelessly but originated in a harmless place – it functioned, for me, as a mockery of the simplistic approach that the sarah silverman character takes to issues of race. the highlighted quote (”what do we want”) appealed to me as confirmation that the episode was, in fact, a joke about modern american racism and the mistakes we make when we talk about it. blackface has no inherent meaning, but the cultural meaning it’s taken on ultimately proved too large a cultural obstacle to be tackled in a 30-minute comedy show, which is where the episode failed.

    a lot of the criticism i read of sarah silverman deems her unfunny, as if that’s all you need to know in order to push aside the cultural issues her comedy brings up. i think this is because her comedy is being critiqued by people who don’t necessarily follow comedy. comedy is so subjective and silverman’s humour comes out of a newer group of comedians who don’t necessarily get the same amount of media coverage as does silverman – watching her show, i think of comedians like maria bamford, patton oswalt, even tim & eric or zach galifianakis. to someone who is interested in this kind of comedy, i think she is very funny – but her choice to grapple with issues of race etc brings her under the scrutiny of people who don’t necessarily care for that brand of entertainment, and so she is so frequently reduced to just “gross out” or playing off of her looks – two elements of her humour which really don’t encompass the whole thing, or even the better parts. it’s easier to push aside the discomfort caused by silverman if you discredit her as a comedian, but that’s not wholly fair and it’s a little lazy.

    Posted 18 Jul 2009 at 5:28 am ¶