Stuff white people do: think that racism is ok if you’re being ironic about it
by Guest Contributor Macon Dee, originally published at Stuff White People Do
Do you remember Pauly Shore? I don’t find him especially worth remembering, but I think his new project, a movie called Adopted, deserves attention. Critical attention.
It seems to me that in the trailer below, Shore enacts a common white tendency: acting racist in a way that’s supposed to signal that you know you’re acting racist. And thinking as you do so that because you’re being ironic, you don’t really mean to be racist, so the racism you’re enacting is okay. And kinda cool and funny too.
The film’s official site describes it the following way, with, presumably, a heavy dose of irony. Tongue firmly planted in cheek, as people used to say:
For hundreds of years, Africa has existed in a state of despair. Famine, civil wars and rampant disease have left the continent without hope, but for the efforts of Western do-gooders. At first, they arrived with food, bibles and the magic of penicillin; more recently they have hosted rock concerts and sent plane loads of grain. And in the last decade of the 20th century they arrived and took babies home with them. First there was Angelina, then Madonna, and now…Pauly Shore!
The film builds its comedy foundation on the international interest in Celebrity Adoptions, and the debate that surrounds these transactions on both sides of the Atlantic. Sometimes politically incorrect and never scared to tread on manicured toes.
So only those with manicured toes would feel tread upon by this approach? Really?
It might be fairly easy for some white folks to see where Shore goes wrong here, but I wonder if that would stop many of them from doing similar things. I see this same kind of ironic racism in, for instance, some of those college parties where people put on blackface and tape forties to their hands, or gorge themselves with tacos and tequila while wearing sombreros and fake mustaches.
When these party-goers get called out on their racism, they sometimes respond that of course they know that a lot of what they did could seem racist, but they didn’t really mean for it to be racist, and that makes it all okay. A further defense they often add (one which the producers of Shore’s film also trot out) is that the people who object to their ironic racism are being too sensitive, and too “politically correct.”
Here’s one such partier, Jeremy Pelz, defending his actions in these terms, after being called out for such a gathering at Tarleton University. This was a Martin Luther King Jr. Day party, and it “featured attendees wearing gang apparel and Afro wigs, carrying malt liquor, handguns, and fried chicken, and even one woman dressed as Aunt Jemima”:
Pelz noted that the [annual] party was started a few years earlier “because one of [his] best friends is black or African American, whichever you deem politically correct, to be his day not to dishonor him.” He added, “So I do apologize if you felt any disrespect because none was intended.”
How’s that for a sincere apology? Come to think of it, it might even be an ironic apology.
Have you encountered other instances of this phenomenon, that is, clearly racist actions that are supposed to be okay because the person committing them didn’t mean to be racist? And where it’s all your fault if you think their actions are wrong, because you’re supposedly overlooking what really, really matters more than anything else, which is the supposedly non-racist intentions behind their actions, rather than the racist effects?
[h/t for the video: Angry Black-White Girl]
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Whitney wrote:
For some reason, Cesar Chavez day is huge at my alma mater, and a photo was published of a bunch of frat guys wearing sombreros and fake mustaches, and thank goodness, people called them out on it, and the letter was printed in the school paper. I was really glad to see that kind of response and those people called out for their actions.
And the thing is, I don’t think that those students knew what they were doing was racist. I think they thought they were trying to be funny and of course didn’t think it would offend anyone, and probably thought they were too sensitive about it.
I can’t believe students do that with Martin Luther King, Jr. day. They’re openly mocking great leaders in America’s past.
If anyone is interested, here is the letter to the editor from MEChA:
http://media.www.theorion.com/media/storage/paper889/news/2008/04/09/Opinion/Letter.To.The.Editor.FrontPage.Photos.Dishonor.Chavezs.Memory-3310392.shtml
Here’s the original article:
http://media.www.theorion.com/media/storage/paper889/news/2008/04/02/OnlineExclusives/Parties.Stay.Tame.On.Cesar.Chavez.Day-3296266.shtml
Read the captions to the photos. “Many students wore ponchos, sombreros, fake mustaches and red, green, yellow and white and drank Mexican alcohol to show their spirit.”
Here are some comments from students, disagreeing that they’re being disrespectful:
[...]“Students are just having a good time, and it’s not mocking anybody,” he said.
Wearing sombreros on Cesar Chavez Day is the same as wearing green and drinking green beer on St. Patrick’s Day, Sowden said.
“Everyone pretends to be Irish, and it’s not a big deal,” he said.[...]
Unfortunately it has happened at my school.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 6:41 am ¶
Mammith wrote:
I was talking with a friend about this very thing last night! We decided it all depends on context to be honest.
If it’s humor of the type, ‘I’m gonna say something that sounds racist, to take the piss out of racists’ like saying something obviously stupid, I’ll admit it’s not high comedy but if it’s in a mixed group with history than it can be alright.
Though on the other hand, I have been the only non-white in a group once where jokes of that kind were being made and it made me feel real uncomfortable. Theres the problem, that sometimes faux-racist jokes are actually just a cover for… racist jokes.
A lot of the time, the desire for these kinda stupid jokes stems from outrage on the behalf of some whites, that there are things they just aren’t meant to say. I’m sure many of you have heard things along the lines of ‘well, why can’t we say N*****!?’
Perhaps it’s just political correctness gone mad? *rolls eyes*
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 6:54 am ¶
Eurasian Sensation wrote:
I didn’t really have a problem with the Pauly Shore trailer to be honest. I didn’t think it was funny, mind you. But it seemed like he might have been making fun of stupid Western attitudes, rather than Africans.
Ain’t seen the movie (probably ain’t gonna), so I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 7:25 am ¶
Rob Schmidt wrote:
Re “Have you encountered other instances of this phenomenon, that is, clearly racist actions that are supposed to be okay because the person committing them didn’t mean to be racist?”
Yes…the entire Indian mascot debate (http://www.bluecorncomics.com/mascots.htm), for starters. Or the controversies in which kids dress up as Indians for Halloween or Thanksgiving. People rarely “mean” to be racist when they act as if all Indians were savages or warriors or lived in teepees.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 7:50 am ¶
abby wrote:
I hate the way he says he is walking on the streets of Africa like Africa is a country or a state.
And that wasn’t funny, I am not sure what to make of it. I am just taken aback by the tastelessness and tackiness of it all. A part of me understands what he is going for, but he fails at achieving it.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 8:01 am ¶
Restructure! wrote:
Macon D,
Are you serious? You are guilty of this, Macon, when you wrote that white people sit quietly in movie theaters, implying that non-white people are noisy in movie theaters. When 911sajoke said that she/he had been stereotyped, you dismissed her/his criticism with, “It may well be that you’ve stereotyped yourself, by reading something into the post that isn’t there.”
Afterwards, in part two, you wrote:
“Restructure, I didn’t mean for that response to 911 to be dismissive, and 911, if you’re still reading, I apologize for wording my response in such a way that it could be interpreted as a dismissal. My point there was just to underline what I deal with more fully in this post–that nothing in the first post says anything at all about non-white people.” (emphasis mine)
To this day, you still have not apologized to 911sajoke.
It’s so easy to note the racism of those other white people and feel good about yourself. When people like me point out your racism, you say that we are “hijacking” your post, because we want to talk about your racism instead of the racism of the white people in your post.
Mod Note – Restructure, enough. It’s obvious that you have personal beef with Macon, everytime we cross post him here, you bring it up. But this comment has nothing to do with what Macon posted. If you think Macon is a racist, fine. Keep it to your blog and his blog. But he brings up good ideas and good topics for discussion, so we will continue to post his work here. You can choose to read it, or not read it, but the crusade ends here. Further comments in this vein will be deleted. – LDP
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 8:40 am ¶
Jess wrote:
I think it’s important to draw a very clear distinction between cover for racist jokes (like the partygoers dressing up in blackface) and something like what it looks like Pauly Shore — who honestly, I never found that funny — is trying to achieve.
I mean think of the difference between “Borat” and the kids who dressed up in blackface. “Borat” was very clearly (to me anyway) bringing out the racism that is so often hidden, and Cohen did it in a really clever way (and he also managed to make a movie that is actually, in a way, very sweet and hopeful). Shore, well, I can see what he is going for, though I don’t find it as clever.
Lumping these things together because they share a few tropes here and there is too simplistic, I think.
I mean, I found Shore’s trailer worth a chuckle because so many white people think exactly those very things about Africa, and it’s stupid. Pauly Shore doesn’t seen to be showing the Africans (he never says what country he’s in) as stupid here — he is the one we are supposed to make fun of. At least, that is what I see so far, without seeing the whole movie I can’t be too certain.
It’s a little like Stephen Colbert. I mean, we all know he isn’t really a conservative O’Reilly – like blowhard — and that’s the point.
Do I love what Pauly Shore has here? Nah, it didn’t wow me (that is, it wasn’t laugh-out-loud funny).
But I don’t think that it quite falls under being “ironically racist” as the blackface and fake sombreros do. There is a difference between laughing at one’s own dumb attitudes and laughing at the people those attitudes are directed against.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 8:49 am ¶
Luis wrote:
He was trying to make fun of Western attitudes, but missed the mark by a long shot. All of the humor comes from him spitting out various African stereotypes in Africa, instead of actually looking at and laughing at the Westerners who blithely walk into Africa with these attitudes. Even the synopsis is just “here is some ignorant garbage about Africa that people would say if they were racist,” without doing the work of good satire and interrogating that position.
When Colbert succeeds on his show it’s when he not only brings up contradictory or blindly conservative ideas, but then wraps it up with a punchline that reveals what’s really wrong or dangerous about it. He’s really impressive when he uses the same voice to scrutinize liberal positions, which, coming from a person on the left, sometimes need scrutiny. He usually gets this right, and at the very least you feel him trying to do this. You don’t feel Paulie doing anything resembling this. He never gets past the surface.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 8:52 am ¶
atlasien wrote:
Humor can involve racism without being racist. There’s a complicated border involving context, audience and who has the most power in any given context. Some comedians mean to be on the right side of the border, but find themselves on the wrong side when it suddenly shifts.
But when that happens, they should take responsibility and give a real apology, not that “I’m sorry YOU were offended” crap.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 8:56 am ¶
[dave] wrote:
@atlasien: well said. i think that margaret cho and sarah silverman do this kind of humour very well, until they don’t, when they usually screw up the apology. so i watch with reservation. oh chelsea lately does it too.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 9:49 am ¶
Phrone wrote:
This reminds me of a lot of the discussion that comes up with satire and when people do satire that’s really racist.
I think the key distinction to make is who the audience is supposed to be laughing at. A lot of the parties mentioned seem to be making fun of the various minorities — like “Haha! Aren’t black people funny! They all eat fried chicken and dress like gang members!” or “Haha! Aren’t Latinos funny! They all wear sombreros!” — while this trailer doesn’t seem to be. I think Jess’s reference to Stephen Colbert is spot on.
People tend to use “satire” and “ironic” as an excuse to say whatever they want. (Like, “Oh, I wrote this horrible mess of stereotypes, but it’s fine, because it was satire.”) But I don’t think it’s enough. I think you have to look deeper into the terms. What is it satirizing? What is it trying to be ironic about?
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 10:11 am ¶
gail wrote:
I agree with atlasien and dave (9&10). Humor (and communication more generally) isn’t just about what is said, it’s also about the relationships implicated by what’s said and the relationships defining the statement. I’m white. Some of the best laughs I’ve had have been with friends of color when we engage in ironic racism. It kills the humor to intellectualize it, but I’m sure that part of the laughter comes from the shared intimacy of knowing we are united in our rejection of racism while we articulate the glaring stereotypes in any given situation. On the other hand, that humor fails when the shared intimacy and trust isn’t there, and people who presume that trust or intimacy come across as lame and posturing at best.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 11:02 am ¶
Whitney wrote:
Oh jesus, Pauly Shore.
I completely agree on the overt racism as humor just still being racism thing (take for instance the home makeover episode of “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia” where they HILARIOUSLY showed the white cast making racist after racist comment and action towards the silent, POC sideline characters, and so really, it was just another show about white people who were being racist towards marginalized characters of color), and that being a person of so many privileges, to impose yourself among real people (not even actors and sets) and places and be a fucking asshole to them while you profit off of it, primarily because of the race dynamics, well, then that sounds pretty racist to me.
And if nothing else, Pauly Shore, that shit is PLAYED. I mean, come on, family guy has been on for how long?
Oh, and plus, once when I was 15 Pauly Shore groped me at a concert. gross.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 11:08 am ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:
@ Luis
You hit the nail on the head both in terms of why Shore fails here (if in fact he had any interest in realigning Western assumptions about Africa*) and why Colbert is often more successful in his critique.
“Ironic” racism is epidemic in New York – that great liberal bastion of liberalness and togetherness and diversity (where, for example, the income gap between whites and blacks just happens to be larger than anywhere else in the country – no racism here, no sir-ee).
One awesome encounter:
Rooftop party in Williamsburg. Mostly white, some color sprinkled in. Montel Jordan plays. White woman: Soooo, did you enjoy the Montel?
Me: Uh . . . Not really. (I hate “This is How We Do It”!)
WW: YOU don’t like Montel Jordan? Yes you do. You totally do!
Me: Why, because I’m black?
WW: Well, yeah – all the black people I know love Montel Jordan.
Me: So what? There are plenty of black people who do not like Montel Jordan.
WW: Uh, whatever! (in sassiest fakest “street” accent) I AM BLACKER THAN YOU ARE, GIRL.
(laughter laughter awkward glances and head shakes from the group).
And scene.
People mistake a few trips to the taco shop and having Dominican neighbors and consuming Viacom products and having dunks and drinking 40s and dancing to Public Enemy and not being a skinhead for not being racist. All the thrill of supremacy without any of the condemnation plus, a pat on the back to self for being so transgressive and progressive in one’s tastes.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 11:14 am ¶
CVT wrote:
@ Jess -
“Borat” is a very different situation, as the actor is actually Israeli, speaking accented HEBREW (as “Kazhakstani”) and then satirizing anti-semitism. In that situation, due to his own background and obvious clues (if you know what to look for – I admit that I didn’t until a friend pointed it out), the satire comes through.
The problem is that, when it’s somebody “satirizing” racism about ANOTHER race, it’s real easy to just be racist. To me, the second “Harold and Kumar” was in that vein – when the audience laughed about the white government official talking about the Koreans’ “fake ching-chong language,” it sure as Hell didn’t feel like they were laughing at the “irony” of it all.
Is it really so hard to call out those attitudes and behaviors and THEN make fun of them? Why is it necessary to just flat-out say racist ish and pretend that everybody is going to take it as “satire”?
If I imitate a racist encounter I had with somebody (about me) in a funny way, that would be “ironic” or “satire.”
If I imitate racism about other people with no context? I’m just re-enacting the initial racism.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 11:21 am ¶
mga827 wrote:
Great post.
This is *exactly* why I hated Borat.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 11:24 am ¶
mga827 wrote:
@ Jess:
I don’t say this with any condescension, but you must not be jewish or eastern european (I happen to be both).
I know that Sascha Cohen is both as well. Yet still, he mocked the Kazakhstanis accents, clothes, and even implied incest between families who were completely unaware of what he was saying. They were just glad to have a camera in their face. They stood their cheering and smiling while Borat openly humiliated them to millions and millions of people. On top of which, his stereotypes about Jews weren’t any better. Remember how he planted roaches in the hotel of that sweet and doting Jewish couple? They lost an incredible amount of business after that.
I don’t remember much more, fortunately, because the movie made me so upset.
But if I can remind us of the first scene, “The Running of the Jews”, or something like that.. Someone was wearing a head with an extremely big nose, and being chased by a mob of people. [I normally do not mind jokes about jew's noses, as long as they're made with love].
Now I ask you, how is this any different from blackface?
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 11:36 am ¶
Matt wrote:
It seems to me he’s trying to make fun of racists. Where he forgets the kid he supposedly adopted while he hits on some woman – he paints himself as someone whose concern for others is shallow and selfish.
Sometimes that line seems awfully thin, and context is a part of it. And audience is a part of that context that a performer has very little control over.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 11:38 am ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:
@ mga827
Why does it have to differ from blackface? Is your assertion that blackface would never be mobilized for laughs today? Because it is.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 11:46 am ¶
Amused0472 wrote:
I think Shore is targeting Westerners. When he says he’s walking the streets of Africa–I think that’s a reference to Sarah Palin who was reported as believing Africa was a country and not a continent. If you are going to do such ironic satire in regard to racism or any type of ism, I think you have to be really good at it and really funny, else it’s going to come across as more racist than ironic.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 11:52 am ¶
Cara wrote:
Here’s my problem with all of this: dragging kids into the mess. Do you think these kids “get” the joke, or care when they’re the ones being forgotten, touched with rubber gloves and face masks, or spouted racist stereotypes at? Don’t they get enough of that shit without some jackass being “ironic” about it?
And what if these kids really do want to be adopted? I’m certainly not going to make an assumption that it is their dream to go live in America with some nice white person, but you know . . . what if it is? What if that sounds a hell of a lot better than their current situation? I do, after all, imagine that most of these kids would at least like to be adopted by someone. And they get into this, only to realize that no, wait, Pauly Shore doesn’t want them . . . he’s just being funny, har-har!
So yeah, I am grossed out.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 11:58 am ¶
Monie wrote:
The thing about irony is if you don’t get it then what? There are a lot of people, maybe the majority of Americans, that don’t get the so-called irony of this type of racial humor. So to them they are just laughing at racist jokes.
Regarding White college kids that dress in Black and brown face; I think that they are feigning ignorance. They know that they’re being racist but figure if they act dumb that they can get away with it.
Apparently there strategy is working since those types of parties continue to happen on college campuses all over the country.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 12:02 pm ¶
Monie wrote:
There = Their and brown = Brown
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 12:04 pm ¶
Jess wrote:
@Mga827
Your comment is one o the reasons why I try to make sure I’m careful about imputing motive. I am Jewish, I am Eastern European, and partly East Asian as well, with a rather long family story that involves political activism around race and labor that I won’t bore you with.
I didn’t say I loved everything about Borat, but I did think his take on Eastern European anti-semitism was really incisive in some ways, not so much in others. So I can say “I liked X” and “I didn’t like Y” — I have, to be honest, mixed feelings about it.
I liked i some ways that he called out many people in Eastern Europe on their anti-Semitism, at least initially. I mean my whole freakin’ family was killed there, and the Poles and Romanians and Hungarians didn’t exactly do a whole lot to help. In the modern period, anti-semitism has been on the rise and it’s just sad.
But on the other hand Borat humiliated a village full of people. But the villagers did sign on to the whole running of the Jew skit — I mean, they all turned out for it and I have trouble buying the idea that they were all so dumb (and nobody there spoke anything but Romanian? No Hungarian-speakers (common enough in much of the country) and no speakers of Russian, German or English? Schools in Romania aren’t great, but even relatively rural districts aren’t full of illiterate peasants.
And on the other hand (and I run out of hands
) I felt no sympathy at all for the frat boys Borat called out, or the people at the Rodeo show who showed their colors without meaning to.
And on the next one I thought in some ways Cohen had a lot to say about perceptions of race and class and American stereotypes of other nations.
So Borat, for me, anyway, has multiple readings. I can’t really say I am of one mind on it and be honest.
Pauly Shore isn’t anywhere near as clever or sophisticated. I understand where he is going with it, but for whatever reason he doesn’t really execute it well. If I were to take a stab at it, I’d say it’s because he never gets into “character” enough. It’s almost like he’s uncomfortable really inhabiting the role the way Colbert would do. Does this make any sense? I’m not sure I am articulating it well myself.
So I don’t see Shore’s bit as racist, per se, but like, kind of not quite making it as satire, which is too bad– I mean, there is a lot to say about people from rich countries going to other countries and adopting (or in the case of Russian mail-order bride mills, marrying) people from there. Too bad Shore doesn’t seem to have the chops. But maybe I am wrong and it gets better — without seeing the whole film I feel a little weird saying anything.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 12:10 pm ¶
Celeste wrote:
@CVT: Yeah that 2nd Harold and Kumar was a doozy. It’s a fine line, but I think that they accomplished using racist language to make fun of the person being racist. I laughed just as hard at the grape soda wasting as I did at “what’s wrong with his eyes?”. I dunno, that’s kinda my litmus test. If I laugh as hard when they’re making fun of anti-black racism as when they’re making fun of anti-asian racism then I conclude that they’re not making fun of the POC’s. I think the Jewish character taking the coins on the table crossed the line because they were playing into the stereotype. The black people didn’t try to save the soda, the asian parents spoke unaccented english but the jews had to go for the loose change? It seemed inconsistent.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 1:00 pm ¶
Jess wrote:
@Cara–
Be aware there’s a very real possibility (Probability) that the kid is a paid actor. Remember, even Pauly Shore wouldn’t risk ending up in jail, and lawyers do get hired for this kind of stuff, you know? In Borat to give a famous example, Pam Anderson was in on that joke — she wasn’t really running from some creepy guy, and as I remember her publicists and aides had told her exactly what was going to go down.
So until any of us knows otherwise, my inclination is to say the kid is in on it insofar as he’s part of the production, not an innocent bystander. The whole situation would be just too damned complicated to justify otherwise — and here I mean in terms of pure self-interest for Shore, who isn’t an idiot.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 1:22 pm ¶
Seattle Slim wrote:
Rooftop party in Williamsburg. Mostly white, some color sprinkled in. Montel Jordan plays. White woman: Soooo, did you enjoy the Montel?
Me: Uh . . . Not really. (I hate “This is How We Do It”!)
WW: YOU don’t like Montel Jordan? Yes you do. You totally do!
Me: Why, because I’m black?
WW: Well, yeah – all the black people I know love Montel Jordan.
Me: So what? There are plenty of black people who do not like Montel Jordan.
WW: Uh, whatever! (in sassiest fakest “street” accent) I AM BLACKER THAN YOU ARE, GIRL. -A.D. Nix
============================
LOL @ A.D. Nix. I feel your pain. I HATE that. I get that all the time. I’m laughing because the nerve of the person who told you that is something else.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 1:42 pm ¶
Crystal wrote:
I have to second Cara in comment #21: Involving needy children in his little performance is disgraceful. And I’d argue that more people would notice the disgrace if it wasn’t needy African kids being involved.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 1:53 pm ¶
luckyfatima wrote:
Borat was mocking Muslims and especially the Kazaakh people. Kazaakhs may seem like some random abstract (easy target) people for many Westerners, but that is a real culture, real history, and real national identity, real people that were completely debased by that vile, tasteless movie.
Jess Quote: I liked i some ways that he called out many people in Eastern Europe on their anti-Semitism, at least initially. I mean my whole freakin’ family was killed there, and the Poles and Romanians and Hungarians didn’t exactly do a whole lot to help. In the modern period, anti-semitism has been on the rise and it’s just sad.
What??? Those villagers were ethnic Romani Romanian citizens—that is a big difference from white Romanians, the white Eastern Europeans sent them to the gas chambers as well, although their community’s devastation during the Holocaust is forever politically overshadowed by the genocide of other more contemporarily privileged communities (from denial of reparations, lack of info sections in Holocaust museums, and the fact that they are so oppressed to this very day). Romani people are still one of the most marginalized ethnic groups in the world, and there Cohen is mocking them and using them for his disgusting movie.
I hate that movie and that whole character and film is a prime example of the issue mentioned in this article.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 2:10 pm ¶
Miles Ellison wrote:
The biggest irony is that a seemingly endless stream of racist “entertainment” is being produced, yet no one is a racist. In order to do effective satire, you have to have familiarity with the object of satire. This kind of thing never works because for most of America’s history, racism has been whitewashed from the collective consciousness. If you never acknowledged that racism existed in the first place and are unaware of its depths, you can’t do satire about it. You’re just telling racist jokes.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 2:31 pm ¶
Jess wrote:
@luckyfatima–
See my comment about mixed feelings.
I didn’t get the Muslim read, actually, for a couple of reasons. First, he makes no explicit mention of Islam in the film. Second. Kazakhstan is nominally Muslim, but Russian is nominally Orthodox Christian, and I don’t think you’d argue that making fun of Russians equaled making fun of Orthodox Christians.
Now, obviously you and I know a little about Kazakhstan, but most (Americans don’t, and that was precisely the point — not one of the people Cohen meets ever looks up and says “Wait a minute, people don’t really act like this do they?”
No, he lets them wallow in their stereotypes. And they show some things that are rather uncomfortable — for them.
As to the village being Roma, well, yeah. That’s one reason I was uncomfortable with what he did there.
That said, I’ve spent some time in Eastern Europe over the last 20 years. And I have yet to run into people who were that unsophisticated about TV — at least no more than rural Americans in say, the backwoods of West Virginia, or Montana, or Mississippi, you know?
I don’t know about you, but I have never, ever been able to think in absolutes. It just never seems to work for me… and I try to recognize where my own prejudices come in to play. That’s why I try to recognize that my youthful hatred of Germans (and a more visceral one of Christian churches) made no sense and was wrong, you know? Thus my mixed reaction to Borat. One part of my mind says “It’s about time those f***ers got a little of what they did to us” and another says “Wait a minute… ”
Maybe I am just a naturally conflicted person, lacking the moral certainty everyone else seems to have. But I find that moral certainty is the quickest way to go down some very bad roads.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 2:38 pm ¶
9jah wrote:
“A lot of people think I came here to Africa to tell jokes, I actually came here to get HIV” – and some on this thread actually think this is mere “irony” to mock westerners!?!!
More. “You know where I can find a mall around here?’ I suppose the “irony” here is that Pauly assumes he is in his west with shopping malls to his disposal – of course, only someone who does not realize there really are malls African cities would find this ironic and not just perpetuating ignorance. And then there’s the cab bit at the end.
The most debased part about this all is how Africa, including all the unwitting participants in the film, is subsumed to a platform for exploring or mocking the triflings of all of three white celebrities. Any one who does not think this is blatant racism (irrespective of the intentions of the actor) needs to strongly re-evaluate.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 2:46 pm ¶
Beth wrote:
I’ve recently been watching the old TV show Maverick, and almost all the characters in it are racist, one way or another. On occasion it takes on racism head-on, but more often there are subtle moments that keep me from throwing something at the tv. Many characters are openly hostile to natives, and when they do interact in non-hostile manners are patronizing and openly racist. The native characters themselves are often shown as being more intelligent or better educated than the people patronizing them, however, and, in the better moments, are openly contradicting the stereotypes the other characters are applying to them. It’s not unproblematic, but it is a way to point out those beliefs and behaviors and simultaneously dismantle them.
It becomes worse, however, when the second part is left out. At that point it’s not “ironic”, since the irony is that reality contradicts the satired notion. All you are left with is racism performed with the knowledge that it is racist, which is certainly not even slightly subversive.
The thematic parties, however, don’t usually have even that veneer, since people are celebrating a stereotype (including St. Patrick’s day, for that matter) without the uncomfortable edge that self-aware racist performance holds. At this point they are using the “ironic” label simply as an excuse to dismiss anyone who criticizes their racist fun.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 3:16 pm ¶
Ruchama wrote:
““Borat” is a very different situation, as the actor is actually Israeli, speaking accented HEBREW (as “Kazhakstani”) and then satirizing anti-semitism.”
He’s not Israeli, he’s British. His mother was born in Israel, though.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 3:20 pm ¶
Michelle wrote:
Miles Elison, great, great point.
Cara, I agree with you, and to the other poster there were many children in that film. Were ALL of them actors? And did anyone else catch the Macy Gray comment? I didn’t think that was cool, but I admit I am overly sensitive to comments about young girls and their hair. Especially by White male adults.
Jess, good points. I hear you and I se where you are coming from. You and the other poster brought up things that I had been ignorant of in regards to the backdrop of Borat. Also, I thought that Borat was supposed to be Christian. At no point did I ever think he was Muslim or from an Islamic country.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 3:30 pm ¶
mga827 wrote:
Why does it have to differ from blackface? Is your assertion that blackface would never be mobilized for laughs today? Because it is.
Absolutely not, A.D. I was replying to a comment that I took to mean that Borat was not “as bad as blackface”. To me, they’re both unacceptable.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 3:33 pm ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:
I realize that I told that story here before. Well, what can I say. It stuck with me.
@ Seattle Slim
There have been much more subtle, but equally annoying, encounters like, you know, people randomly giving me the “Um hm girlfriend” with the two snaps after I say something pithy or funny. That’s not even trying to be ironic though, is it?
Borat does not sit well with me.
@ Michelle:
Yeah . . . caught the Macy Gray comment. Embedded in so much crap it almost slid by. This is straight mockery. Of the people, not his audience and not so much Western attitudes about “African” people and African-ness. I would say “FAIL” but i think he’s succeeding at precisely what he’s set out to do.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 3:46 pm ¶
Anca wrote:
Jess said:
“No Hungarian-speakers (common enough in much of the country) and no speakers of Russian, German or English? Schools in Romania aren’t great, but even relatively rural districts aren’t full of illiterate peasants.”
As a Romanian, I just have to intervene in this discussion.
Jess, you seem to think that you know what you’re talking about, but you really don’t. Just because you might have some Romanian blood in you, that does not make you an expert in Romanian affairs, culture and traditions.
1) Hungarians aren’t spread throughout the country. In fact, most of them live in Transylvania, where they make up 19% of the population, but only 6-7% of the total Romanian population. Most of them live in Harghita and Covasna.
2) There aren’t any Russians in Romania, and even if there are, their number is minuscule. You might be referring to Moldova though, which is half Romanian and half Russian.
3) There are few Germans left in Romania (we call them Saxons). Most of them immigrated in the early 1990s and few people speak German.
4) The official language of Romania is Romanian, so no, there aren’t people living in Romania whose first language is Romanian. There are expats, but that’s different.
5) Last but not least, schools in Romania are GREAT, not just good. The level of education that Romanian children receive far exceeds that of North Americans. Children in grade 7 do math and science that North Americans might not even do in university. All of the Romanians speak at least one language in addition to Romanian (be it English, French, Hungarian, etc…). As well, if you didn’t know, Romanians are renowned throughout the world for winning all the mathematics and science olympics. We’re also known in the world for being excellent computer scientists, engineers, etc… Just to reiterate, Romanians are extremely well-educated. Yes, even the villagers.
6) The Roma situation is extremely complicated and it’s difficult to explain in a post, it would take me hours just to scratch the surface. As well, a North-American won’t be able to fully comprehend the situation without understanding Romanian culture, history and traditions (American standards don’t apply in Romania/Europe). I will say that the Romanian (and European in general) perception of Roma is sometimes well backed by hard cold facts.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 4:09 pm ¶
Anca wrote:
CORRECTION:
***4) The official language of Romania is Romanian, so no, there aren’t people living in Romania whose first language is English. There are expats, but that’s different.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 4:10 pm ¶
inkst wrote:
This is a fascinating thread of discussion, and I don’t mean that ironically at all
I agree with what most people have said about the context being of the utmost importance, and honestly it is difficult for me to pinpoint where the line gets crossed. I do know when something makes me feel uncomfortable, but that’s just for me. Everyone’s personal context is separate from the intention of a comedian or film maker.
Whether it has racial overtones or not, the Borat/Daily Show interview/Jerky Boys (for those who remember/ and in this case Pauly Shore “gotcha” humor always gives me mixed feelings. This Pauly Shore trailer felt really wrong, but even when a Daily Show correspondent goes in front of some poor, unsuspecting person in a small town somewhere and acts like an ass, I usually laugh, but also feel sorry for the person on the other end. I honestly don’t know if they know what’s up or not. But I digress.
I would like to throw two other examples into this thread. One is Dave Chappelle, who is beloved by the same college kids who wear sombreros and afros. It seems to me easy for a white person to laugh at negative humor about POC when it comes from a POC. Chappelle makes a lot of fun of black stereotypes, which somehow serves as a way to make it ok to laugh even if you’re not black.
And I assume that the title of this post was a reference to the “Stuff White People Like” (stuffwhitepeoplelike.com) blog, which I admit to really liking a lot. Any other readers of that blog? Anyone have an opinion on it? To me, it is a site written by a white person with the finger pointed directly at certain aspects of upper middle-class, liberal white culture. Stuff that NEEDS to be made fun of.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 4:11 pm ¶
Anca wrote:
Jess : I liked i some ways that he called out many people in Eastern Europe on their anti-Semitism, at least initially. I mean my whole freakin’ family was killed there, and the Poles and Romanians and Hungarians didn’t exactly do a whole lot to help. In the modern period, anti-semitism has been on the rise and it’s just sad.
—————————
Romanians did A LOT to prevent the murder of Jews. Many Romanians took Jews in their homes, and they refused their houses to be searched by German forces. In fact, Israel rewarded Romania for doing as much as it could to prevent the murder of Jews.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 4:13 pm ¶
BlackDahlia wrote:
Pauly Shore…needs to take his caveman troglodyte ass back to Encino with Brendan Frasier. Not funny Pauly…but then..when were you ever?
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 4:18 pm ¶
brad wrote:
For what its worth, I think “hipster racism” is a fantastic term for this sort of stuff. (And I first heard it used here at Racialicious, I believe in a post about the New Yorker’s “Fist Jab” cover).
I’ll also coin the analogous term “hipster homophobia.”
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 4:51 pm ¶
Seattle Slim wrote:
@A.D. Nix: I cannot stand being called “girlfriend.” I don’t like it. I don’t like to be “sassed.” It’s insulting to the intelligence.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 5:27 pm ¶
Tracey wrote:
I’ll give the movie the benefit of the doubt and guess that it’s meant to be satirical of people with White Man’s Burden mentality rather than ironically racist. I tend to like humor like that if done well, though I worry this movie will end up stereotyping the recipients of such “aid”. For instance, I liked the sketch from scrubs where a visiting doctor starts talking to Turk slang accompanied by elaborate hand slaps/pounds after greeting the other(presumably white) surgeons with handshakes and “Hellos”
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 5:59 pm ¶
Tracey wrote:
@ A.D. Nix 14
Sorry for taking up more space but right on.
If one more person of ANY race( I’ve gotten this from black people as well)insists that I can dance because I’m black I am going beat their behind and then do the running man(badly) on their back. It may reinforce violent stereotypes of black/non-hetero normative women but maybe I’ll explain I’m beating the daylights out of them b/c they’re annoying and racist not because of my race and/or sexuality. It’s bad enough being a bad dancer without having people tell you that you can in fact dance because you are black. What’s worse is when they’re 100% serious, not even joking a little.
I get sick of the “not black enough” ” I’m blacker than you” comments. I also had a boss who would call himself black (he was not) because he wore baggy clothes and listened to rap/hip hop. That kind of mentality annoys me on so many levels. Because being able to dance, wearing FUBU and Tommy Hilfiger, and listening to rap are what make a person black. Yet it seems the “whigger” character is present in a lot of movies, sometimes satirically,sometimes not.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 6:14 pm ¶
texascowgirl wrote:
I don’t think Pauly Shore is funny and I’m surprised to see that he is even alive, however based on this clip I think he is making fun of celebrities. Many celebrities have used Africa and the Third World to increase their porfiles and make themselves look good. When they have a movie come out you can be sure to see them in some refugee camp or pimping out their newest brown baby accessory. I really do think that’s who he is making fun of.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 6:41 pm ¶
Jess wrote:
ANca–
I’m not saying I am an expert. Nor am I saying that any Romanian would speak Russian because there are Russians there, or that the native language would be anything other than Romanian (or Romana if we want to get pedantic). I was trying to say that just about every Romanian I ever met had a grasp of at least one other language (they usually approached me in French if they thought I was a westerner back in the day).
I was trying to say that I find it hard to believe that villagers in any part of Eastern Europe are as stupid as they are portrayed in Borat, and further, I find it difficult to believe that they were that unsophisticated.
That is, and please, please understand this, when the village folks later complained about the movie, I didn’t entirely buy that they were misled ignorant waifs. Romania is a relatively modern country, with, as you pointed out, decent schools. Since most Romanians I ever met speak at least two languages, I just had trouble figuring out whether nobody in the whole village said, “hey, they have a TV camera and y’know, I happen to understand a little English and they aren’t saying nice things here.”
I wasn’t putting them down at all. Jeez loo-eez.
I was saying that I have spent some tme in many parts of Eastern Europe pretty often over the last two decades. The stereotypical ignorant villagers do not, as far as I can tell, exist.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 8:12 pm ¶
Jess wrote:
Also, and understand this as well, the whole freakin’ point of what I wrote was to talk about mixed feelings, and ways that things aren’t as easy as they look. For me or anyone else.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 8:18 pm ¶
Eurasian Sensation wrote:
The problem with humour of this type is that it requires the audience to be in on the joke. Whether its Sacha Baron Cohen or Dave Chappelle (not sure that Pauly Shore is in that class), when they seem to make fun of a particular ethnic group, a smart audience knows that they are largely making fun of the ignorant stereotypes and assumptions that surround the ethnic group, such as Cohen and Jews. Or in Chappelle’s case, he is aiming at smart people, black and otherwise, who share Chappelle’s affection for African-Americans but also can laugh at their foibles.
Unfortunately, not everyone is in on the joke. Senses of humour vary widely, and most audiences are probably not that smart. Hence the people who think “Borat” is an anti-Semitic movie, or non-blacks for whom “Chappelle’s Show” is a mere reinforcement of the stereotypes they have about black people.
Personally I think both shows are funny. And I like to think I’m in on the joke.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 9:21 pm ¶
soledadida wrote:
“anti-racist comedy at black people’s expense”
it’s ironic that they think they’re not racist because they are trying to be ironic.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 11:16 pm ¶
sisternebraska wrote:
Ultimately: this video is in bad taste. But I think it’s discriminatory to say that it’s only white people make ironic jokes about racism, and that it’s always offensive to marginalize others. As a clueless white person, I think it’s important to put it out there that there’s a fine line between what’s funny and what’s not. It’s funny if it’s mocking the white people themselves who do ridiculous things–or any other race, for that matter.
I run into the same “fine line” because I’m also Muslim–most humor targeting Muslims by Christians isn’t funny to me because it’s based on ignorance. But non-Muslims who know a lot about my religion and can make jokes that are relevant and don’t promote ignorance can be really funny, just because it’s helping to marginalize the everyday stupidity you face as someone Different in this country. It’s a fine line, but ultimately, if done right, comedy is best to make sense of the trials we come up against–even if it means touching on difficult issues.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 11:30 pm ¶
Medusa wrote:
@ Tracey, A.D. Nix: YES. Exactly what you said. I don’t have to deal with people telling me I’m not black enough/don’t act black/act white nearly as much now that I’m back in Asia, because we’re such a small percent of the population people don’t have this idea that we all listen to hip hop constantly/have to constantly fight the urge to speak in Ebonics/are African-American regardless of where we actually come from (for example, Ghana), but I feel you.
Posted 13 Feb 2009 at 12:23 am ¶
embarcadero13 wrote:
@Inkst
I’d like to think that some people (by this, I mean, mostly Caucasians), choose to be deliberately ignorant to the undercurrent of the humor, and laugh at the lightest, most accessible level of the humor. It doesn’t take critical race theory for someone to understand social commentary…
But then again, does that mean we (the critical thinkers), aren’t allowed to have comedians, or to enjoy the joke either? Should we pander to their level?
I liked the blog SWPL, but then it was on NPR, and the callers turned the criticism against the fecklessness of the race into point of pride. Everyone called in and said things like, “I am SO WHITE! I totally do everything on this blog!” It became a form of cultural identity for them.
In the mean time, most people of color I knew found the blog hilarious precisely because it was making fun of all those same eccentricities.
Posted 13 Feb 2009 at 12:35 am ¶
CB wrote:
This type of crap pisses me off so much, and it happens A LOT at my school (Yale Univ.) A few years ago,the Asian Student Association help a day of silence/demonstration because the Yale Daily News (supposedly our equivalent of the NY Times) thought it would be ironic and funny to advertise an asian movie event with a headline about “Yellow Fever”. A tabloid (The Rumpus) published an ironic article about interracial dating where they said numerous racist things about asian women and that black women have purple vaginas. So unfortunately, I’ve encountered this on an almost constant basis. I always feel that when some one uses this type of irony the person saying: “I know this offends you, but it’s funny to me and I don’t care if it offends you. Getting out this joke is more important than showing you respect as a person.”
Posted 13 Feb 2009 at 1:18 am ¶
robyn wrote:
Why is it that so many commenters are willing to give Pauly Shore the benefit of the doubt? I mean how often are racists willing to give People of Color the benefit of the doubt? Never.
I’d love to believe those kids are paid actors, but white folks have a very long track record of exploiting non-whites
Posted 13 Feb 2009 at 2:03 am ¶
Eurasian Sensation wrote:
@ sisternebraska:
Good point re: “most humor targeting Muslims by Christians isn’t funny to me because it’s based on ignorance. But non-Muslims who know a lot about my religion and can make jokes that are relevant and don’t promote ignorance can be really funny”
My friends and I (mostly Chinese and Indian) enjoy some good-natured ribbing about our ethnicities, in the knowledge that the humour comes from a place of understanding and respect. But when the humour comes from someone who clearly has no idea about the culture, it doesnt sit quite so well.
Think about the standup done by Russell Peters, which is entirely based on ethnic stereotypes. He pokes plenty of fun at the Chinese, and all the Chinese I know think he’s brilliant, because his observations display a good appreciation of the culture. Some of his material about Africans makes me uneasy though, as it lacks the same kind of insight.
Posted 13 Feb 2009 at 3:25 am ¶
Michelle wrote:
Re: Dave Chappelle
I believe, at least he says, that the reason he walked away from his show was because he realized that non-Black people were laughing at him, not with him. He crossed that invisible and fine line where you stop being Richard Prior and you become Jimmy Walker.
Isn’t that also the point of this post? Where is that line? And why does Pauly Shore think this is okay? Granted, it is just the trailer, but why is the trailer so damned, damned, damned offensive! I am still stuck on the Macy Gray comment y’all, for real. I mean, come on! If the movie is truly brilliant, why is the selling of it blatantly racist, and what does that say?
Posted 13 Feb 2009 at 3:54 am ¶
Lxy wrote:
To be frank, I think that this “I’m being ironic, so it’s not racism” line is often merely the newest, contrived alibi for many to indulge in racism.
While there certainly are artists who are sincere in at least trying to using satire to mock racism, there are probably many others who are less than benevolent.
One uses satire to unmask racism.
The other uses satire to cloak racism.
One way to tell the former from the latter group is watch their reaction when someone brings up these issues and criticizes their work.
If they resort to the standard propaganda phrases about “political correctness” or “you are being too sensitive,” that’s probably a good indication they are less than sincere–and are just hiding behind satire and irony as political cover.
After all, if they are truly opposed to racism, they would at least be open to hearing the perspectives and criticisms of minority groups who are directly impacted by it–instead of reacting with the usual glib dismissiveness that is almost an instinctive response of mainstream America these days.
Some have termed this use of irony/satire Hipster Racism. It could also be called Coward’s Racism.
In contrast to the more open forms of racism such as that of the KKK, this hipster racism is much more hidden, disguised, and timid in announcing itself.
Irony and satire in particular are now appropriated as “plausible deniability” in this new hipster racism.
Posted 13 Feb 2009 at 7:59 am ¶
Ric Caric wrote:
I think it would be best to see the “ironic racism” of the Pauly Shore trailer as arising out of the world of “racial joking.” I used to have a lot more contact with that world when I was working in restaurants. What strikes me is the social flexibility of racial joking. On the one hand, racial joking is something that whites share among themselves as an informal ritual of white supremacy. On the other hand, racial joking is also something that whites expect to be able to share with African-Americans. Here in Kentucky that kind of racial joking comes under several guises ranging from the pretty much undisguised racial hostility of “fuck-em if they can’t take a joke” to treating racial difference as something analogous to a sports rivalry. Racial joking is incredibly debilitating, but it needs to be understood as well as condemned.
Posted 13 Feb 2009 at 9:15 am ¶
Jess wrote:
@Robyn–
The whole point is to be better than the racists, no? If you want to behave just like them what makes you any better at all?
Thus. the reason some of us are willing to reserve judgment on Pauly Shore. I don’t know the facts of the involvement of the kid in the film. Until I know the facts, I will not condemn (or applaud) the man. My bet was that he was paid, and an actor (or local hired as one) because if he wasn’t then I could see a major international incident, and Pauly Shore would be locked up in whatever country. Since Pauly Shore isn’t a complete idiot, and probably does not relish payig lawyers any more than he has to…. you see where that goes. Do I know for sure? No.
Now a racist doesn’t care about the facts. We do, right? That’s (part of) what’s supposed to make us better.
Posted 13 Feb 2009 at 10:31 am ¶
jstele wrote:
Hipsters pretend to be racist in an ironic way for two reasons:
1) They think they are above the racism, so are entitled to indulge in it. (as mentioned in the article above)
2) Deep down, they truly enjoy doing racially “naughty” things. They want to believe the best about themselves. However, they really are racists deep down.
Conclusion? It’s all about egotism, pleasing the self. What it really comes down to is racism. Because seeing racist things as funny is racist. There’s a racist sentiment behind the laughter, truth being that the hipster really sees the “other” as strange in a funny way.
Posted 13 Feb 2009 at 10:51 am ¶
little mixed girl wrote:
i thought i was the only person that noticed that this seemed to be a pauly shore(sp) versions of BORAT.
anything that involves poking fun at race is always going to be met with praise and condemnation.
i don’t think the issue can be easily resolved… that’s the simplest way i can put it.
Posted 13 Feb 2009 at 11:07 am ¶
CVT wrote:
I think this comment thread pretty much sums up why this sort of “ironic” racism doesn’t work – for every example somebody has brought up of it working, there is another person that was pissed off/offended by that very example.
If the folks that read this blog (people obviously pretty aware of race and how it plays in society) can’t agree on the messaging of these types of acts, what is the chance that the ignorant folks who ARE racist are going to get it? Or those middle-of-the-roaders who “have a black friend”? Terribly unlikely. Which means that the majority of folks are laughing because they think the jokes are funny – not because they’re “ironic.”
Posted 13 Feb 2009 at 11:10 am ¶
CVT wrote:
By the way –
I admit I just now watched the trailer – that shit is definitely NOT funny.
And when he “eenie meenie miney moes” the kids on the street, how did everybody else miss the connection to the original version of that song (it wasn’t an f-ing TIGER that they caught by the toe back in the day)?
Anybody backing Pauly Shore on this one is blowing it.
Posted 13 Feb 2009 at 11:13 am ¶
Alexandra wrote:
All I have to add regarding the “I didn’t MEAN it that way” is this:
http://themasculinemystique.blogspot.com/2008/07/11-privilege-to-define-everything-part.html
aka The Principle of Intentions vs. Effects:
“The Principle states that, whenever you are acting from a position of privilege, your genuine intentions are not what gives your actions their moral value. Rather, it is the effect of your actions on other people that decides the moral value of your actions. Furthermore, the Principle states that people who are wronged by your actions get to name those wrongs, and get to say what you need to do in order to redress the wrongs caused by your actions.
In short, actions speak louder than words. The consequences of your actions on those who are marginalized by your privilege is what matters. Your (genuine or fabricated) feelings when you acted do not matter, as they will not change the effects of your actions.”
More info here, http://www.menstoppingviolence.org/LearnMore/articles/TheLieOfEntitlement.pdf
It’s a tricky concept, probably will be controversial, but I feel it’s a necessary thing to consider when you’re trying to figure out how to cope with apologists.
Posted 13 Feb 2009 at 11:30 am ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:
@ CVT
Rare is the instance where any group, even a group of similarly positioned people, will see every cultural practice in the same way. I think that satire can definitely be mobilized to fight racism – not just to secretly indulge in it for whatever motivation. Execution, context and audience definitely determine whether or not it works.
Posted 13 Feb 2009 at 12:46 pm ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:
@ Medusa
There’s a sense of “I know how you guys are, I love it! Just be yourself . . .” – I guess that’s where the “irony” comes in. Because, no you don’t.
As with racial fetishes, the agent can convince him/herself that affection can’t be as harmful as contempt – even though they are motivated by the same salty stereotypes and ass backwards thinking.
I can’t speak for other marginalized people but I’m no more interested in being someone’s pet than I am someone’s monster.
Posted 13 Feb 2009 at 12:57 pm ¶
macon d wrote:
I’m honored that this piece was cross-posted here (thank you, Latoya), and I’ve found this discussion fascinating and productive. I guess it’s a cliche to say that when you analyze humor it isn’t funny anymore, but some kinds of humor deserve that kind of deathly analysis.
I especially appreciate the discussion here of Borat for that reason–that whole shtick is now a lot less funny to me than it was before. This discussion has also helped me think about some other humor that’s been bothering me, the faux-colonialist attitude projected in a skit about Kenya by “The Daily Show’s” John Oliver, so today I wrote about that performance in relation to whiteness.
I try to understand and expose common white tendencies, including my own, and those include common white ways of laughing. Aside from the obvious racist jokes, much of the other, seemingly benign humor that provokes white laughter deserves to be deflated with analysis (though not all of it, of course–I think that George Carlin, for one, was awesome; come to think of it, he wasn’t seemingly benign). Thanks again everyone for so many insights here.
Posted 13 Feb 2009 at 3:55 pm ¶
Paz wrote:
Interesting discussion.
My friend’s university had a series of workshops discussing race after a group of students had a blackface party. Appropriate response, I thought. I had no idea that blackface parties or other racist events were so common though. Santa Clara University in the Bay Area had some bad press a while ago when some students there had a Latino-themed party where they dressed up like pregnant girls, gardeners, maids, etc.
I love race related humor, but I was immediately put off by the Pauly Shore trailer. Poking fun at the whole brown baby trend and celebrity cause trend has potential, but it seems to be badly executed here.
I’m curious what people thought of the movie Bamboozled? I saw it a couple of years ago, and I still am not sure what to make of it.
Posted 13 Feb 2009 at 4:14 pm ¶
texascowgirl wrote:
@CVT
Point taken. I’m black and honestly that did not come to mind. I honestly assumed he was making fun of celebrity adoptions and the hast with which they seem to do it. Or that that was the central theme.
I wonder how much of this is a problem because it’s Pauly Shore, who is a jackass and a baffoon? We don’t trust him with race because we don’t trust his intelligence or motives. But what if this was John Stewart or Steve Colbert? Would we trust them and believe that ultimately it was celebrities who adopt from developing countries and not the people in those developing countries.
If you saw Trpoic Thunder, you probably know that there where two obvious digs at Angelina Jolie. The first was Robert Downy, Jr’s character playing a black character and Ben Stiller’s character adopting an Asian boy to help his image. Barely a peep was made about any of the possible stereotypes inherent in this and accepted that they were just digs at Angelina. I think that’s because people trust that Ben and Robert aren’t racist and we have no such trust in Pauly Shore.
Posted 13 Feb 2009 at 4:52 pm ¶
Minke wrote:
The fact that the title is “stuff white people do” is really annoying and tiresome. I recently went to a movie night where most of the people were Chinese guys and Indian (as in from India) guys. All of them did the ironic-racism thing; every single one. The Chinese guys did it to the Indian guys (”I could smell you guys coming from a block away! Hahahahahaha!!”) especially. Frankly, as a reader of Racialicious, it made me uncomfortable. While perhaps confined to white people in the movies and television, it real life everyone does the ironic racism thing. Please stop segregating so many issues and their discussions into white vs. non-white.
Mod Note: Minke, if you look at the source, the post is from the blog “Stuff White People Do” and Macon titles all of his posts this way. That one was not an editorial decision. – LDP
Posted 13 Feb 2009 at 8:12 pm ¶
Miles Ellison wrote:
@ Paz
For what it’s worth, I thought that Bamboozled was brilliant. A masterpiece of satire. It was about 180 degrees removed from this “ironic racism” that is being discussed here. The reason that it worked is simply because Spike Lee understands that racism informs stereotypes of black people, rather than denying that it exists, or minimizing its impact, as people who whine about political correctness often do when their racism is challenged.
In fact, Michael Rappaport’s character is a representation of the phenomenon that’s being talked about here, insisting on his “right” to use the word “nigger” because he has a black wife and a wall festooned with black sports heroes. He’s obviously a racist buffoon, but he hides his racism behind his interracial marriage and superficial hero worship.
While the film does display grotesque and offensive stereotypes, Lee drives home the fact that these stereotypes are the product of a poisonous and ignorant racism that cannot be ignored or excused. These stereotypes are seductive to whites and blacks, which explains their constant rehashing in movies, TV shows, and rap videos. This kind of thing is so hard wired into people that they aren’t capable of looking at people in any way that isn’t based on stereotypes.
Posted 14 Feb 2009 at 1:32 am ¶
Lxy wrote:
@minke
What’s annoying and tiresome are people who cover for White hipster racism by deflecting attention from it with contrived “everybody does it” arguments.
In your cited case in particular, you gloss over the political difference between the racialized joking that occurs *within* a racial group (like Asians) and those *between* a White majority and racial minority. It ain’t the same.
This is not to mention the issue of who posseses American media power in general.
But in the unreality of “post-racial” America, the oh-so-clever racism of a multimillion dollar Hollywood movie is somehow morally and politically equivalent to the jibes between some Asian guys in a movie theater.
Posted 14 Feb 2009 at 1:43 am ¶
CVT wrote:
I think I figured out how this could have been pulled off without feeling so disgusting:
If Pauly Shore was following a REAL celebrity who was actually doing this. If the joke was on the celebrity, showing what an ass they were. The problem here is, with Pauly Shore imitating those same asses, he’s f-ing with the same REAL people (the “Africans”) that those celebrities insult. The folks we’re supposed to be siding with are NOT in on the joke – they ARE the joke, and that’s the problem.
Switch the perspective, so that we see the “African” (it kills me that I don’t even know where it was actually filmed) folks laughing at the real celebrity . . . Now THAT would be quality satire.
Posted 14 Feb 2009 at 12:37 pm ¶
Fiqah wrote:
@Tracey (#46) -
“If one more person of ANY race( I’ve gotten this from black people as well)insists that I can dance because I’m black I am going beat their behind and then do the running man(badly) on their back.”
:::drops dead:::
Posted 14 Feb 2009 at 2:41 pm ¶
ann wrote:
“Have you encountered other instances of this phenomenon, that is, clearly racist actions that are supposed to be okay because the person committing them didn’t mean to be racist?”
This is exactly what happened with the whole “chink-eyed” Miley debacle. Her 2 pathetic excuses for “apologies” were conditional because she’s sorry IF we were offended. She was just making a “goofy” face. Thanks, Miley, for telling me my face is “goofy” and worth mocking. Thank you, for giving another reason to disrespect you.
Posted 14 Feb 2009 at 3:02 pm ¶
Restructure! wrote:
I’ve encountered so many instances of this phenomenon, although some instances stand out in my mind more than others because of situational irony.
Generally, people think that racism requires racist intent, and that as long as you were not consciously trying to be racist, it isn’t racist. People think that black people dance well, Asians are good at math, etc., and since they mean it as a compliment, it’s “not racist”. Sometimes even if a white person says something negative about a person of colour, other white people will defend him/her and say, “That’s ignorance, not racism,” since the person didn’t know that not all Africans are uneducated starving people with AIDS, etc.
This is a serious pet peeve of mine. The idea of intent being more important than effect extends even beyond issues of race, and I’ve encountered instances of this outside the context of racism. I think it’s based on a Christian idea of morality in which goodness comes from your “heart” and can be disconnected from your actions. For example, if you have sinned, you can be forgiven if you spiritually accept Christ as your saviour. (Resist racism has a recent post on The non-apology ‘apology’, which is about Miley Cyrus and the false notion that Christians cannot be racists.)
Either way, I don’t care about ranking people by moral value. I believe that if you are adult, you are responsible for how your actions affect others, and you are responsible for your own incompetence. Avoiding the feeling of guilt is not more important than how your actions have negatively affected others.
Posted 14 Feb 2009 at 5:59 pm ¶
Kepler wrote:
Totally late to the game, but a great way to spoof the ‘American celebrity adopting from foreign land’ would be to have a celebrity from a foreign land adopting from the US. The protagonist doesn’t even have to be a true foreigner the same way Borat isn’t really from Kazakhstan (for the sake of argument imagine the protagonist has learned from “Borat”’s mistakes). The protagonist could go to absolute poverty locations (e.g. rural southern communities) as a way to show that even in the wealthiest nation in the world (credit crunch and ‘deep recession’ withstanding) people can live in miserable settings. As long as we continue to perpetrate the wealthy westerner arriving to save the African from him/herself, it’s merely a continuation of the White Man’s Burden, and essentially recycling old material with no new insight.
As for Pauly Shore’s movie, I can see the potential (is it me, or did he joke about Dave Chapelle’s disappearance into S. Africa?), but I won’t be surprised if he misses the mark. And for the question of whether the child is an unwitting participant , there are two issues that I have trouble believing: a) that a studio would release a film if the child wasn’t compensated and b) that a child in an orphanage would look that well nourished (based on my experience when I lived in Kenya).
But I could be mistaken.
Posted 14 Feb 2009 at 6:53 pm ¶
macon d wrote:
Kepler,
Tracey Ullman has already done it (raising the question in the process, probably inadvertently, of whether it’s ever okay for a white person to don blackface).
Posted 14 Feb 2009 at 8:38 pm ¶
Sobia wrote:
@ Minke:
Its all about who has power. When ethnic minority comedians (ie Russell Peters, Shaun Majumdar, Maz Jobrani etc) do “ethnic” comedy and joke around about race issues its not necessarily the same.
First, these comedians are making fun of the stereotypes and racism as opposed to perpetuating it. And this is clear from their comedy.
Second, these comedians do not come from the dominant, powerful racial group in North America – White. If a person of colour “makes fun” of the stereotypes of South Asians, I don’t feel threatened. This person does not have more power than me. But if a White comedian were to do it, it feels threatening because no matter what the intention may be, this comedian has more power than me in society.
Now of course, all this does still depend on the comedy itself because not all comedy coming from ethnic minority comedians is safe. I hate Carlos Mencia. His stuff is just rude and offensive. He doesn’t make fun of the stereotypes but rather perpetuates them.
White people do have to understand that, because of their history of oppressing people of colour, they can’t have certain “privileges” that we can. We don’t have as many as White people to begin with so let this be ours at least. Not to sound rude but….tough. Once we have the privilages White people do then White people can complain about ethnic comedy.
Posted 15 Feb 2009 at 9:35 pm ¶
Jorge wrote:
This is exactly what Family Guy blatantly does which is a HUGE problem because it is worshiped by pre teens. These kids do not reason in irony.
30 rock is doing it too with the latin angle. The ones really laughing at this vailed racist humor are the people that write it and their target demographic. The people who are the butt of the racism are not who is it intended for but in case we get mad they were being ironic.
Posted 16 Feb 2009 at 1:42 am ¶
Laughingrat wrote:
This post made me reconsider stuff I’ve said. Oh, I know that the stuff described in the post is racist–it’s stomach-turning. But what about the times I’ve mocked racists by echoing their words ironically? Was that really necessary? Was I just inadvertently giving more air-time to racism? Was my ability to excuse that satirical parroting of racist rhetoric as “ironic” part of my white privilege?
Posted 20 Feb 2009 at 10:21 am ¶
resonanteye wrote:
It all comes down to a funny joke being funny, and an unfunny joke not being so.
Pauly Shore is not funny. Chappelle was funny (for about three months). In enlightened circles (non-racist, that is) funny is funny and stupid, lame, badly-timed crap is not; and it doesn’t matter what color you are or who the joke’s about.
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 4:25 pm ¶