Trackbacks & Pings

1. March feminist blogging round-up « Zero at the Bone on 01 Apr 2009 at 6:51 am

   [...] Peterson at Racialicious writes Open Thread: Of Racism, “Satire,” and Humor. She has to be one of my favourite writers in the [...]

Comments

1. prettypithy wrote:

   I don’t buy that the apology is sincere. If I were attempting to satirize the perceptions of an ignorant person that did not reflect my own beliefs, I would run the piece by as many different people as possible to ensure that the humor was apparent. If the author had bothered to share this piece with a single person of color before publication he probably would have been disabused of the notion that this was somehow humorous or “okay”. Not that it is our job as PoC to go around editing our insensitive colleagues work of all traces of racism but this could have easily been avoided.

   Furthermore, I take issue with this statement: “I was initially trying to criticize what I perceived to be surprise among many at the naming of an Asian-American President-Elect, Dr. Kim.”

   It really bugs me when people try to minimize the history of racism by acting like it is no big deal when a person of color accomplishes something previously unattainable. I can understand why people would express surprise–this has never happened before! Why would that be worth lampooning in and of itself?

   The apology is well worded but it doesn’t really make much sense given the tone deaf and unrepentant content of the e-mail. I feel that this guy probably began work on the apology shortly after hitting send on the e-mail–he must have known this was going to blow up in his face.

   Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 2:12 pm ¶

2. Ugly Deaf Muslim Punk Gurl! wrote:

   That’s NOT satire. I actually thought it was really a real email written by an angry, Bush lovin’ GOP redneck.

   FAIL.

   Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 2:16 pm ¶

3. Restructure! wrote:

   2. I am also trying to understand how satire focuses around the subject of the subject. For example, if I was writing a satire about Otaku culture, I would probably have many references to nonsensical words like “Squee,” strange practices like “glomping,” general nods to fan culture, and some kind of scene where someone was trying to stalk and woo someone of a certain ethnicity using short phrases in a language that they do not speak. (I.e., white guy to Korean girl – “You’re cho-kawaii!”*) What would NOT be present are stereotypes about Japanese people. Why? Because Japanese people are not the subject of the satire! If you’re going to satirize Joe Sixpack, can we please introduce Joe Sixpack in the piece?

   I think requirement #2 applies more to parody than satire in general. So if you are doing a parody of otaku, it doesn’t make sense to focus on stereotypes of Japanese people.

   Interpreting very charitably, I can see how the original Dartmouth email contains elements of ’satire’ now, but it rests on the false assumption that racism no longer exists, that it is rare, that the average American reading it does not assume that every Asian is an immigrant, and that the average American knows that Panda Garden is not representative of Chinese food, etc. (I may be giving Tommy Brothers too much credit here.)

   I don’t see how “It was a complete supplies” targets white racists, though.

   Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 2:40 pm ¶

4. atlasien wrote:

   I really don’t understand the thought process of people who think that making “l”/”r” jokes is funny. It’s mind-boggling. It’s not just harmful and racist, it’s the most crappy form of comedy and you might as well be making jokes about airline food or saying “take my wife”.

   I remember a long time ago on The Simpsons, Krusty the Clown did a “me so solly!” joke as part of his routine. It was sort of funny because the audience immediately booed him for making such an awful joke.

   If you can’t make it similarly obvious that the object of humor is the person saying the racist joke, you should not be doing comedy, because you are an inept failure.

   Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 2:41 pm ¶

5. Amused0472 wrote:

   The piece was hateful and not remotely humorous or satirical. He did take more ownership in his apology than the New York Post’s monkey cartoonist. He probably would have done better if he focused on the rivalry among the Ivys, Dartmouth v. Harvard as the source of his satire. Choosing race as the source of satire was just a bad idea when it had nothing to do with anything. I don’t think it could have come off as anything else but a racist, personal attack.

   Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 2:50 pm ¶

6. Sarah wrote:

   What is a “near subsistent wage”? I think he means “subsistence.” The other construction is never used and makes no sense. This self-styled “satirist” doesn’t have the best language skills himself–what a supplies!

   Latoya, I think your comments on satire are apt. Your 3rd point–”whatever happened to satirizing your own community”–is spot-on. Giving the author the benefit of the doubt about the target of this “satire” doesn’t make things a lot better. I imagine that the writer is situating the “reactionary, xenophobic, ne0-Patriotism” to which he refers somewhere in the stereotypical hinterlands of America (probably in the South judging from the y’all), far from the ivy-clad walls of Dartmouth. Even if you take this the way he intended, the email is still snobbish and classist, and emphatically not satire! If he wanted to make his readers squirm, wouldn’t some sort of jab at privileged, elitist, academic liberalism have made more sense here?

   Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 3:03 pm ¶

7. Jess wrote:

   I’d give him points for understanding a little that intent and execution aren’t the same. And I can sort of see where he was going (he was trying to do a Colbert-style thing here).

   But I’d have edited the things differently. I think he doesn’t get that Colbert says things that people might take as a real conservative. But to explain a little better, here’s how I would have edited it:

   Yesterday came the announcement that President of the College James Wright will be replaced by Kim Jim Yong. And a little bit of me died inside.

   this would be where you need the reference to the author being a “real american” or some such, perhaps some hat tip to Limbaugh or something? Something reasonably obvious — so we see who the object of the ridicule is

   On July 1, yet another hard-working American’s job will be taken by an immigrant willing to work in substandard conditions at near-subsistent wage, saving half his money and sending the rest home to his village in the form of traveler’s checks.

   here I would have inserted something about the university presidency, a la the Onion’s “black guy gets worst job ever” when Obama was elected

   Unless “Jim Yong Kim” means “I love Freedom” in Chinese, I don’t want anything to do with him. Dartmouth is America.

   It’s a slippery slope we are on. I for one want Democracy and apple pie, not Charlie Chan and the Curse of the Dragon Queen. I know I sure as shit won’t ever be eating with chopsticks. I like to use my own two American hands.

   The last paragraph to me would be moved up — that would help, because the “my own two hands” is so ridiculous, and that’s the poking fun at white people that you need for this.

   And anyone else, feel free to chime in — lord knows I can’t see how it “feels” on the other end. I was just trying to offer up a suggestion, and maybe an example of how such satire can maybe work. And no, I don’t buy the ‘it was satire’ defense either. But I figure the best way to root out this stuff is to offer up your own, better versions.

   Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 3:09 pm ¶

8. Kandi wrote:

   OMG! I nearly passed out and died. I could barely get through it without cringing. And they’re trying to pass it off as a joke?

   Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 3:17 pm ¶

9. Emily wrote:

   Sarah — great point about “othering” certain segments of white America in order to distance oneself from them — the author assumes xenophobia, etc, is the province of “those” white Americans – the ones that DON’T attend Ivy League NE schools.

   Middle/upper class white people, I find, have a hard time executing true satire that is not directed at “others”. South Park can do a pretty nice job sometimes, weird as that seems.

   Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 3:25 pm ¶

10. rosmar wrote:

    The satire sucks, but the apology is actually pretty good. He explains his intentions, takes responsibility for the fact that, despite his intentions, he has caused harm, and even says “all that remained on the page were my extremely racist words.”

    I give the original email an F, and the apology an A-.

    Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 3:25 pm ¶

11. gatamala wrote:

    I was initially trying to criticize what I perceived to be surprise among many at the naming of an Asian-American President-Elect, Dr. Kim. I then tried to broaden my attack to encompass all of the reactionary, xenophobic, neo-Patriotism that exists in our post 9/11 America.

    ummmmm

    so why didn’t you satirize the folks who think that way?

    I have the same nagging thoughts to LP.

    This is just a backhanded way to make fun of certain ethnic groups.

    Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 3:26 pm ¶

12. Dartmouth Student wrote:

    I am a Dartmouth student and I am writing this to say that this guy IN NO WAY reflects the general sentiment at our school. This kid is a moron (he TRULY had no idea that he would offend everyone he just thought we would laugh along with him), incredibly ignorant of his own bigotries, and a disgrace. Dr. Kim is an amazing person (I was lucky enough to meet him myself) and will do wonders for our university. Hopefully, he will be a step away from the old image of Dartmouth as a school for rich white males.

    Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 3:32 pm ¶

13. gail wrote:

    I think satire or parody are really effective when the writer / creator of the piece really knows:
    1. the issue they want to write about;
    2. their own relationship to that issue and how that informs their understanding.
    This would explain why people are better at creating parody or satire about their own cultural practices. Their knowledge is richer, more nuanced, and informed by an understanding of their own humanity.

    They also need to be honest with themselves about who they are writing for and how their satire or parody characterizes their relationship to their audience.

    I also notice that the pieces Latoya references as effective instances of satire are about process (writing about Africa) or policy (how to deal with poverty), they are not about a culture.

    Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 4:03 pm ¶

14. Lauren wrote:

    WTH is wrong with people? White people, to be exact?

    Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 4:06 pm ¶

15. Lauren wrote:

    …to be exact.

    Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 4:06 pm ¶

16. jen* wrote:

    When I read the offending email over at resist racism I was shocked that anyone could think this was satire on any level. It hurt to read.

    The apology sounds like it came from a different person altogether. It’s a good apology, but nothing I’ve ever heard from someone so racist as to have written the offense above it.

    Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 4:32 pm ¶

17. NancyP wrote:

    Dartmouth hasn’t changed in the last 30 years, I see.

    Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 4:34 pm ¶

18. Alyssa wrote:

    I can believe that this was intended as satire, but a poorly written satire. As Layota has noted (and other commenters commented on as well), “[satire's] ideas are so ridiculous, they can be spoken in a deadpan tone and people would still get the humor.” I imagine that the person who wrote this thought that is what he was doing. However, in a world where people regularly say things like this and mean it, the idea is no longer so ridiculous that people will get the humor. Since there is no other indication that the writer is making fun of people who would say this type of thing rather than Asains, there is no way for the reader to tell if this is a satire or a racist commentary.
    Because it is not clearly stating that the racist things being said are stupid (and should be mocked) it actually becomes indistinguishable from the racism it mocks, and thus, just as hurtful.
    I’m glad to see the author apologize. I hope he honestly understands what he did, and takes action to both not do this again, and make sure his friends don’t do the same.

    Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 4:51 pm ¶

19. Reiter wrote:

    Clueless hipster racism strikes again! And the non-apologetic “I’m sorry IF you were offended” faux-apologies continue to roll in.

    Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 5:00 pm ¶

20. Travis Hedge Coke wrote:

    I can buy it as exaggeration, but not as satire. Not even failed satire. The target of the attack is the explicit subject, still, with the absurd criticisms merely enlarged.

    And that “y’all” was weak. But we all know Dartmouth and New Hampshire in general have no real bigotries or racism. Right? It has to be them folks over there…

    Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 5:29 pm ¶

21. Lisa J wrote:

    I didn’t get the satire either. It wasn’t remotely funny and I had to read that supplies line a couple of times before I got what it meant. Just stupid. Of course this proves, that not everyone who goes to an Ivy League school is all that smart and for some people, much like with college attendance in general, being that school is more the result of socio-economic background, family ties, access to a good secondary education and money to help get extracurriculars, including test prep, and not about how truly intelligent you are. Just like there are plenty of people who are very smart who are no where near being able to go to any school let alone an Ivy because they have the flip side of the coin in those same factors that help dumb/thoughtless/nitwits get into these schools.

    Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 5:45 pm ¶

22. Lisa J wrote:

    meant to say “being at that school” not “being that school”

    Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 5:47 pm ¶

23. Elton wrote:

    One of the cardinal anti-racism rules for these “satirical” types:

    Let someone who knows something about racism, who has actually experienced it, say something and please SHUT UP FOR A CHANGE.

    Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 5:58 pm ¶

24. JC wrote:

    He would not have dared to do this “satire” if the new prez is African American. He’s a another proof that somehow it’s PC to post racist attacks to Asians. What do we have to do to change this notion? Mass demonstrations or rallies? What pains me is that does mainstream White America really think we’re that weak? That we’ll just take the spit in the face and let it dry?

    I also didn’t buy his apology. Sorry, because of you, I’ll aways think about racist douche like you when I hear the word Dartmouth, Tommy.

    Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 6:17 pm ¶

25. ElleDee wrote:

    I think for stuff like that to work you need an “outside” part and an “inside” part. The outside part is the hateful reflection of society you are satirizing (this is when you are allowed to put forth ideas that you don’t actually agree with and use language that is unacceptable taken at face value and evoke racist stereotypes), but it *has to* have the inside part that sends up those ideas and slurs and stereotypes and gives the message “thinking this for real is not okay”. Hardly anybody has trouble with the outside part because racism is so pervasive the stuff must write itself, but it’s the send up — the whole point of the piece! — that trips people up. You want to be subtle and funny while still working in the message, but that’s hard to do. But no one said satire is easy, but it’s the tension between the inner and the outer that makes it so delicious when done well.

    I can’t say if the student is actually sorry or not, but where in the original email is any hint that the speaker is wrong and people need to shut up about the guy’s race already? It would be easy to list some of Dr. Kim’s qualifications and achievements and then have your narrator illogically “dismiss” them right away and send your readers the right message, that the narrator is too racist and stupid to listen to the counter argument buried right into the email. (Not every satirist takes this precise tack, but this conceit would work with the email nicely.) But that’s the thing – the writer has to actually put the counterargument in there in the first place.

    As it is, there is none that I can see and I tend to see subversive subtext more readily than most people.

    Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 6:23 pm ¶

26. jsb16 wrote:

    More proof that functional intelligence/sense is not required for admission to any college.

    Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 7:56 pm ¶

27. Aris wrote:

    WOW! I didn’t read satire at all in that piece!!! =/

    That guy FAILS!

    Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 8:15 pm ¶

28. Jen wrote:

    Meanwhile, that “How to write about Africa” piece is gold, although they forgot to mention putting in a line about “even though the people have nothing, they can still smile.”

    Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 8:44 pm ¶

29. brownstocking wrote:

    He is fail. His apology was fail, too. I mean, the last bit about not hitting him up until after finals was the insult/entitlement icing on the not-even-hipster racism.

    I have to co-sign with Lisa J, Ivy League=/=innate superior intellect. But we knew that from the last eight years.

    Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 9:04 pm ¶

30. Suzy wrote:

    Great comments… the Africa piece reminded me of a great Sherman Alexie poem along the same lines, “How to Write the Great American Indian Novel.” Now that’s good satire…

    Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 9:31 pm ¶

31. Nathan wrote:

    Hard to imagine ‘intent’ and ‘result’ ever straying quite *that* far from each other…

    I do love the irony of having failed so spectacularly (and in so anti-Asian-American a manner) in the course of attempting to demean (and illustrate his own superiority over) other segments of white people in the US that he doesn’t like. That’s a very special type of oops.

    So I suppose, in its own bass ackward way, it was a satire…

    Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 10:02 pm ¶

32. the real patriot wrote:

    Speaking of racist “humor” in the NY Times this week, no less:

    Check out the chinese caricature mugs on this woman’s stove, but the best part is:

    http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/03/06/realestate/0308-habitats-slideshow_9.html

    The Times’ description of then as being kitchy “Chinaman.” And to think this piece probably went through a dozen well-paid hands before being published. I often feel that as a nation, we have taken quite a few steps backwards since the mid-nineties…

    Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 10:17 pm ¶

33. Starlet Harlot wrote:

    If that was satire, it was the most hopeless, useless piece of satire ever. It read to me as an entirely sincere email and I’m generally very good with spotting the subtlest of satire. Clearly this guy’s been skipping a few classes. What a moron.

    Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 10:20 pm ¶

34. Medusa wrote:

    @ rosmar,

    I’m with you. The apology doesn’t even sound like it could have been written by the same person.

    @ all, I could have told you that you don’t need to be logical or intelligent to get into college. The idiocy and ignorance I saw on a daily basis at my school (a pretty well-respected institution, no less) was astounding. But seriously, are they not even teaching what satire is anymore in high school?

    Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 10:36 pm ¶

35. Dartmouth Student wrote:

    @JC: Yes, several students have pointed out how, if the new president were an African American, this incident would have made the national news. I can’t say for sure if that’s true, but I still think that in our country it is all too acceptable to target Asian-Americans. The fact that the student had no idea that what he was saying was racist says something about his level of sensitivity and consciousness. I think that many people believe that, because they see so many “successful” Asians/Asian-Americans (in comparison to other minority groups), they can make fun of them. They do not see Asian-Americans as disadvantaged, and choose to ignore the many Asian-Americans who are underprivileged and do not have the same access to resources as middle/upper-class Asians. The “Model Minority” stereotype is far more harmful than many people are willing to admit.

    As I’ve lamented many times to my friends, there are all too many students at our school who are book-smart but have no sense of the world outside themselves: they have little compassion or empathy, and absolutely no common sense. However, I think this holds true for a large portion of our population. Why people expect so much more from “Ivy League” (and that’s another cultural obsession that needs to die) students than the general population-in terms of racial/social awareness-I have no idea. Eradication of ignorance is not a staple in ANY curriculum in any high school as far as I know.

    Dartmouth is like any other school. And like I said before, this student is an absolute disgrace.

    Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 10:41 pm ¶

36. Miles Ellison wrote:

    You would think that someone who attends an Ivy League school would have learned about satire at some point in their education. Are the Obamas the only people who actually learned anything at an Ivy League school?

    Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 10:54 pm ¶

37. Dartmouth Student wrote:

    Also…
    @NancyP: I usually don’t defend my school (goodness knows that as a minority student, I often see general ignorance and denial from my peers), but Dartmouth HAS changed a great deal in even just the last 10 years. It doesn’t look like that from the outside, but I work with administrators in OPAL (the people who do damage control when something like this happens), and they tell me that we have been making progress. It’s slow, but it’s there. It’s cretins like this guy that stand in the way of our progress.

    Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 10:57 pm ¶

38. Jaya wrote:

    Context is everything. In a certain context, that could be satire. It wasn’t, because it was completely out of context. I honestly don’t know how that diatribe could be in context if just sent out as a mass email.

    There’s stuff very similar to that diatribe in Stephen Colbert’s work. Read his book. The difference? Its hilarious. Because the joke is very clearly on Colbert.

    This email is just plain racist.

    Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 11:39 pm ¶

39. Lxy wrote:

    Like much of hipster racism in general, this type of so-called satire–at one level–revels in the same American nationalist racism that it purports to mock.

    And this kind of oh-so-trendy non-racist racism appears to be all the rage among these smug, elitist Whites who believe they are more “racially tolerant” and thus superior to the stereoptypical “Southern Redneck.”

    But as Malcolm X once said, as long as you’re living south of the Canadian border, you are living “Down South.”

    Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 11:41 pm ¶

40. kabbakick wrote:

    Man he is squeezing bullshit through his teeth.

    Fire his ass.
    Is there anything else to do.

    Posted 10 Mar 2009 at 7:07 am ¶

41. the real patriot wrote:

    You can let the NY Times know that its use of the term “Chinaman” in this week’s Real Estate Section (see link to slideshow above) is wrong, despicable and offensive by writing a simple email to:

    letters@nytimes.com

    Or protest any other inane and racist stories you may find on there. Remember, silence is complicity.

    Posted 10 Mar 2009 at 7:54 am ¶

42. Louise wrote:

    How dumb, this arsehole could not even do their research. Dartmouth is in England, and all over anywhere that used to be the British Empire…… this author is a douche that is possibly trying to hide their own sentiments in a convienent cover of SATIRE…… Hmmmm i can smell some serious bullshit.

    Posted 10 Mar 2009 at 7:57 am ¶

43. Logan wrote:

    Looking back, I can see how bits of it were intended as satire. Note: Not defending, just how I see bits:

    “On July 1, yet another hard-working American’s job will be taken by an immigrant willing to work in substandard conditions at near-subsistent wage, saving half his money and sending the rest home to his village in the form of traveler’s checks.”

    Here, he goes after the immigrant for taking a job as the PRESIDENT OF AN IVY LEAGUE SCHOOL, as an example of the “They terk er jerbs”, without the slightest bit of criticism to the school, for apparently hiring a President based off of someone working at an alleged inferior salary rather than hiring based on quality. Definitely jingoistic and idiotic.

    ” Unless “Jim Yong Kim” means “I love Freedom” in Chinese, I don’t want anything to do with him. Dartmouth is America, not Panda Garden Rice Village Restaurant.”

    Jim Yong Kim is, I believe, a Korean name, so the joke here lies in associating a Korean president (and I would hope most of the school would be such) as just a generic Chinese or Japanese.

    “Y’all get ready for an Asianification under the guise of diversity under the actual Malaysian-invasion leadership instituted under the guise of diversity. It’s a slippery slope we are on. I for one want Democracy and apple pie, not Charlie Chan and the Curse of the Dragon Queen. I know I sure as shit won’t ever be eating my Hop dubs bubs with chopsticks. I like to use my own two American hands.”

    Here just other random generic Asian sterotyping bullshit with a bit of The Manchurian Candidate thrown in.

    The problem where it fails, is that the parody is so heavily reliant upon racist stereotypes to make its point that, even when you see the absurd bullshit in his email, you’re left with the impression of a jingoistic racist asshole rather than that of someone trying to parody as such. With a matter like race, you can’t really do an over the top parody, because we are so conditioned to how stupid people can be, and assume the worst, rightfully so.

    Really, he should’ve scrapped it when he read the final product and realized how much it really just sucked. I would hope people wouldn’t be this stupid in real life (as if he wrote the letter with those as his own opinions), but people keep topping each other in terms of ignorance.

    Posted 10 Mar 2009 at 9:00 am ¶

44. flynngrrl wrote:

    I agree with some other folks here who say the attempted satire was terrible and the apology pretty good. I can believe that this young kid totally messed up their own joke, and I thought the way he owned up to it was pretty effective. Knowing the difference between intent and not, and still saying that the intent didn’t excuse his actions – those seem to me to be the words of someone who is acknowledging their racism, feeling ashamed, and hoping never to do this again.

    I feel like any talk about myself as a white person may be invading this conversation, so I will do my best to keep it to a minimum. But myself as a comedian has a few things to say about the attempted satire.

    I think I can see where it went wrong. I feel like this kid started out with one joke and muddled it with three or four others. The line about hard working immigrants taking low wage jobs; that could have blossomed into something that mocked the academic world, classism, maybe even the difference between people who are called immigrants and people who are ex-pats or people who apply for H1 visas. But then the author totally boned it. In the midst of muddling up his premise with too many other jokes, created a racist voice for the essay without clearly mocking the voice itself.

    I firmly believe that you can make racist jokes if and only if the sole subject of your racist joke is racism itself. If there is any hint that the person who is the subject of the racism “deserves it,” or if there’s any “it’s funny because it’s true ha ha” vibe to your character, then you have just created yet another comedy + racism fail.

    I don’t think that this topic is something that satire can’t touch, or was inappropriate to attempt to address. I do think this kid fumbled his attempt in a huge, racist way. If he was on stage, there would have been some awkward silence broken by a few (racist) laughs as the rest of the audience tried to navigate that strange space between “supposed to laugh” and “don’t really want to.”

    Posted 10 Mar 2009 at 9:03 am ¶

45. Frowner wrote:

    Speaking as a white person, one thing I’ve noticed about this type of “humor”–the rationale is always “I’m trying to satirize attitudes held by other problem white people. Somehow it reminds me of white people saying during the election, “Oh, I don’t have a problem voting for Obama, but I think that a lot of other white people aren’t ready for an African-American president.” If your very first thought about a person of color is “gee, I bet those other racist white people sure have a problem with them, unlike me”, then you can be pretty sure that the problem is actually you.

    Honestly, I think all this “pretending to be extremely racist in order to make fun of people who are extremely racist” humor mostly serves to reassure whites that racists are always other people.

    Posted 10 Mar 2009 at 9:22 am ¶

46. ceecee wrote:

    So he was trying to say what some of the white college kids think about their new president, but it’s not like people aren’t already aware of these xenophobic and racist thoughts, why why why spread the poison and fuel the fire?

    On July 1, yet another hard-working American’s job will be taken by an immigrant willing to work in substandard conditions at near-subsistent wage, saving half his money and sending the rest home to his village in the form of traveler’s checks.

    Somebody needs to tell these people that there are third and fourth generation children of Asian immigrants and other heritages living in this country, not just descendants of Europeans. I don’t know why I’m still amazed every time I hear this sentiment expressed.

    …And likening a highly educated and more than qualified professor to a farm hand or domestic worker. Wow.

    Posted 10 Mar 2009 at 9:22 am ¶

47. Eurasian Sensation wrote:

    Bit of an overreaction, methinks. The author is trying his hand at satire and it’s clumsy. I can see what he’s attempting to do, and a cannier writer could pull it off. This guy doesn’t. He just thought he was being really clever and postmodern (and perhaps even anti-racist!) by sending up racism, yet does it in a way that is insensitive and doesn’t take into account the real raw nerve that such language taps into.

    Racist? Probably not. I don’t know the guy, and neither does anyone else on this thread, so hard to say. So let’s not get carried away.

    The apology is a pretty good one, as apologies go. A cut above the usual “I’m sorry if you were offended” rubbish.

    Posted 10 Mar 2009 at 10:48 am ¶

48. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    The alleged goal of the student (named Tommy Brothers) was to satirize the attitudes held by racist or ignorant white people. Here’s a bright idea, Tommy: satirize the racist or ignorant white people, not their targets. Duhhh.

    Here’s how it could’ve gone:

    White people expressed surprise and shock yesterday at the announcement that President of the College James Wright will be replaced by Kim Jim Yong.

    Kim or Yong–it’s not clear which is his last name–is reportedly not a Caucasian. That was enough to set off a flurry of hand-wringing on campus.

    “I’m reeling,” said white student John Smith. “I didn’t know Dartmouth’s president could be Asiatic or whatever.”

    “Our culture is under attack,” said white alumna Betty Johnson. “Next thing you know, they’ll be taking away our congressional seats and movie-star roles.”

    “Why are we hiring the president of North Korea?” asked white trustee Bob O’Ryan. “Doesn’t he have enough on his plate already?”

    “I’m thinking of starting a white diversity program here at Dartmouth,” said white instructor Mary Anderson. “People need to realize that white people have a lot to offer too. We’re not all a bunch of rednecks and fat cats.”

    But a few people took the announcement in stride. “I love beef teriyaki and kung fu movies,” said white secretary Jane Roberts. “So I don’t think it’ll be a problem. Besides, he’s got to be a brainiac, right?”

    And white janitor Andy Jones was hopeful. “If minorities can be president of Dartmouth, the sky’s the limit. I think they can be mayors or governors, too.”

    Posted 10 Mar 2009 at 10:53 am ¶

49. jen* wrote:

    Rob – that was great. Loved it!

    Posted 10 Mar 2009 at 11:42 am ¶

50. Joseph wrote:

    I vote for Rob Schmidt to take over editing Dartmouth’s Generic Good Morning Message.

    Dartmouth, the ball is in your court.

    Posted 10 Mar 2009 at 11:52 am ¶

51. Logan wrote:

    I was trying to think how to do it, and I couldn’t. Rob, you are a better man than me. *raises a glass*

    Posted 10 Mar 2009 at 12:22 pm ¶

52. Cristina wrote:

    I think what’s missing from the discussion is a consideration of the dynamics of power.

    Satire is just one type of language play that is a way for people to express their dissatisfaction with those in power (related forms of language play are irony and invective). Satire has two functions: to reveal inconsistencies or hypocrisies or other moral failings, and because it has that bite, to vent anger. I’ve heard it said that “irony is the trope of the oppressed.”

    The “satire defense” fails when the offender enjoys privilege, whether that privilege is enjoyed because of class, race, gender or sexual orientation. One can satirize whiteness, for example, because you’re then revealing the power dynamics involved and satire is a means of expressing anger or frustration about that form of privilege. But if you’re making bad jokes about Asians as immigrants and outsiders, that’s just being mean.

    There is, of course, a problem with talking about satire in relation to an imbalance of power. First, many believe that we live in a post-race, post-feminist society, that the playing field is level and we can be equal opportunity jokesters. But I also notice that the “satire defense” is often invoked by right-wingers (like Ann Coulter, for example) who not only deny the exercise of power in that way but often position themselves as oppressed. (Don’t even get me started on that.)

    Another thought: if satire is directed at those who are in power and is a way of expressing dissatisfaction or anger, what would motivate someone to write satire directed against Asians and immigrants? Or, another recent example: why would young Republicans organize games of “catch the immigrant”? I just can’t get my head around it, because I see that kind of “satire” showing me that a) that person doesn’t possess the necessary understanding and verbal finesse to do satire really well and b) they are unwittingly revealing some weird and misdirected anger.

    Posted 10 Mar 2009 at 12:48 pm ¶

53. CMyers wrote:

    FAIL. I see what Logan is saying, but I found the piece was neither funny nor effective. I read it without reading the rest of your post so I didn’t have any idea whether it was supposed to be serious or satirical and it seemed to me to be well-thought out racist bantering. Maybe if there were some sort of “gotcha” or some bio info on the president at the end, it would have relieved the tension but as the writer clearly realized, intent and impact are two different things.

    Posted 10 Mar 2009 at 1:24 pm ¶

54. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    Thanks, friends. I had fun. I’m available to consult with all those college frat boys and newspaper editors who say they want to satirize white attitudes but end up satirizing minorities.

    I’m mystified why we keep seeing these racist pseudo-satires. As people have said, satire works by exaggerating an idea to the point of ridicule. The question is: Which idea?

    In this case, Tommy wanted to satirize why whites are scared–which is what I did. But instead he satirized why Asians are “scary.” These are two different things.

    Maybe I’m not mystified after all. No one could be unbiased against minorities yet dream up trash this ugly. I think Tommy inadvertently showed us what he really thinks about Asians.

    Incidentally, the conservative Dartmouth Review mocked Indians back in 2006 when activists demanded better treatment. You can read about it in “Dartmouth’s Conservatives (Try to) Demonize Indians” (http://www.bluecorncomics.com/dartrvw.htm). Dartmouth wasn’t a model of enlightenment then and I guess it still isn’t.

    Posted 10 Mar 2009 at 5:06 pm ¶

55. johnjihoonchang wrote:

    My alma mater never ceases to impress me. One second I’m pleased to find that it had the gall to elect a non-white president who’s very interested in public/world health issues. And then the almost obligatory failure of an attempt by another know-it-all to fall flat in public disgrace.

    All the same, despite race issues still being prevalent at Dartmouth at least when I was these so many years ago, I have to say my experience there was filled with much less racial angst than growing up in my 96% white suburb of Portland, Oregon.

    The biggest race-related conflict that I faced was, as one of two persons of color in my screenwriting class, I argued against a “wise old Asian master” character. I was surprised by the defensiveness of the rest of the class, saying that I needed to lighten up and that it was funny. I was a little too riled up to intelligently defend myself at that point. Fortunately, the writer himself, a white Jew, approached me afterward to discuss the depiction and some alternatives.

    Outside of that episode and the occasional bouts of fraternal stupidity (endemic to many, but certainly not all, such organizations), I have to say that my experience with the school were generally free of no-talent attempts at racial comedy like this email.

    Dartmouth did happen to support and nurture the very popular and talented comic mind, Mindy Kaling, who now works and acts on NBC’s The Office, while I was there, so not all our comedy was this atrocious (although seeing the occasional Jack-O-Lantern school mag now and then has me struggling to believe that we still have a sense of humor).

    @Rob – I believe that your piece is more than Onion worthy.

    Posted 10 Mar 2009 at 5:07 pm ¶

56. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    Forgot to mention…there actually is a corporate training program called “White Guys Are Diverse Too!” (http://www.whiteguysarediverse.com). I e-mailed the details to Carmen in case she wants to incorporate it into her diversity training. Check it out and learn about this little-known facet of American culture.

    Posted 10 Mar 2009 at 5:14 pm ¶

57. Winn wrote:

    @Rob Schmidt,

    PASS!

    Posted 10 Mar 2009 at 5:44 pm ¶

58. Dartmouth Student wrote:

    @Eurasian Sensation
    I disagree. The fact that his email is even being discussed on racialicious (not to mention on Restructure! and Resist Racism) testifies to the severity of his offense. Dr. Kim is an internationally recognized scholar and activist. The GGMM message is humiliating.

    @Rob Schmidt
    With all due respect, please stop being so flippant about the situation. Racial satire was the wrong response to the presidential appointment. Seriously, there was no need to stir up controversy.

    But in the student’s defense: he apologized, why are you mentioning his name? Is that really necessary?

    Posted 10 Mar 2009 at 5:44 pm ¶

59. Evan Carden wrote:

    My two cents on satire, it’s supposed to hold up a mirror to society and reflect it back in subversive ways. However to work, you either need to show the frame, so that it’s clear it’s a reflection (so for the New Yorker cover, if it had been a speech bubble coming out of McCain’s or even a fox’s mouth, I wouldn’t have had a problem with it) or be so extreme that no one really holds those beliefs (eg, satirizing wealthy/middle class views on poverty by advocating sterilization of the poor, isn’t satire because it’s been done and is still being done; satirizing it by suggesting cannabalizing the poor, to choose an example entirely at random does work).

    This piece of “satire” fails both tests, but it’s surprising how easy it could have been fixed, at least to my mind. Adding a

    “Sincerely,

    Lou Dobbs/George Bush/Cheney/Random Xenophobic Nutjob”

    or something like:

    “Sincerely,

    John Smith, Head of the IDIOTS (International Dialogue Involving Original Theories of Sitizenship)”

    I’m not saying that would have made it inoffensive, but I think it would have made it satire, instead of merely hate speech. I’d be interested in what others thought about my attempts to fix this “satire”.

    Posted 10 Mar 2009 at 6:12 pm ¶

60. BSK wrote:

    If you need to tell people it’s satire, than it isn’t. Satire should be obvious. And should make the people who are being satirized question the behavior in question (unless they are complete dolts).

    Well-done satire proceeds from the seemingly-logical to the obviously ridiculous. It would make someone who shares the viewpoint that is being satirized initially say, “Hey, I sort of get this,” and end up saying, “Hm, maybe this IS pretty ridiculous.”

    As was pointed out by the Obama New Yorker cover, if your “satire” can become a rallying cry for the people you are satirizing, EPIC FAIL! Obviously, there will be people without the self-awareness, ability to self-reflect, or multiple brain cells to realize when they are the butt of the joke, but this will generally only further the recognition by others of their ridiculousness. Satire should NEVER offend the group that it is attempting to “defend”. It is one thing if satire misses it’s mark and is ineffective in changing minds. It is quite another when a failed attempt at satire goes so far as to alienate/offend a group that is uninvolved in the behavior in question.

    Posted 10 Mar 2009 at 9:12 pm ¶

61. Joseph wrote:

    @ Rob Schmidt
    “…satire works by exaggerating an idea to the point of ridicule. The question is: Which idea? In this case, Tommy wanted to satirize why whites are scared–which is what I did. But instead he satirized why Asians are “scary.” These are two different things.”

    Quoted for truth.

    Posted 10 Mar 2009 at 9:57 pm ¶

62. D '11 wrote:

    Thanks for posting, Dartmouth Student (#12, #35). I agree with you on all points.

    I’ve no reason to doubt that the email was a case of satire gone wrong, but the fact that he didn’t recognize it as racism shows a real lack of awareness.

    And the obligatory disclaimer: No, we aren’t all like that. Really.

    Posted 10 Mar 2009 at 11:30 pm ¶

63. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    I wasn’t being flippant, Dartmouth Student. I was demonstrating how to satirize the situation without satirizing Asians. I think it’s an important and valuable point and others seem to agree.

    To be sure, Kim Jim Yong’s appointment was NOT a satire-worthy moment. My college appointed a black president in 1988 and no one expressed surprise or wrote a racist “satire.” That Tommy thought the appointment merited a satire says more about him than it does about Dartmouth in 2009.

    In any case, I’d say Tommy’s original e-mail and the distribution of it through the blogosphere are what stirred up the controversy. My little satire didn’t extend or worsen the problem. If anything, it provided some guidance for avoiding such controversies in the future.

    As for calling Tommy by name, I think it’s awkward to keep calling him “the student” or whatever when he publicly gave his name. I didn’t “out” him, he outed himself. I favor clarity and precision in writing and using his name exemplifies that.

    Posted 11 Mar 2009 at 6:35 am ¶

64. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    P.S. Here’s a late-breaking update on the Dartmouth situation:

    White members of the Dartmouth community expressed more surprise and shock at an e-mail making the rounds of the college. Purportedly written by one “Rob Schmidt,” possibly a troublemaker or a foreign agent, it mocked the white community’s stunned response to the appointment of Kim Jim Yong as president.

    “I don’t think the e-mail is funny at all,” said white student Susie Williams. “When you start attacking the people who made this country great, that’s going too far.”

    “Why can’t they just leave us alone?” asked white fraternity member Bill Stevens. “Don’t they realize the pressure we’re under? With all the hip hop and the salsa and whatever, it’s impossible for white people to catch their breath.”

    “As Shakespeare said, if you prick us, do we not bleed?” asked white professor James Wilson. “White people are human too. I don’t think this Schmidt fellow realizes that.”

    In related news, Dartmouth has finally determined that Kim Jim Yong is Korean and Kim is his last name. As of this writing, there’s no word on why Kim doesn’t put his name in the correct order.

    Posted 11 Mar 2009 at 7:25 am ¶

65. Lola wrote:

    What is wrong with using his name? If he was big enough to write it he should be big enough to deal with the consequences.

    Posted 11 Mar 2009 at 11:38 am ¶

66. Haasim wrote:

    Of course it was meant to be satire. It’s just not particularly good.

    Consider the following excerpt: “On July 1, yet another hard-working American’s job will be taken by an immigrant willing to work in substandard conditions at near-subsistent wage.”

    Here, the author was clearly mocking his school and the institution of higher education. He’s being silly.

    He just doesn’t seem to have much of a point.

    The author goes on to conjure up stereotypes related to both Asians and redneck Americans. But he moves from one punch-line to the another without any setup or introduction.

    I imagine the author is a shit stirrer. He’s one those guys who has an impulse to be provocative and “edgy”, but he simply lacked the sophistication and maturity to say something coherent and meaningful…so he ended up writing something that was ultimately lacking and in poor taste. But I seriously doubt there was any racist (or otherwise malicious) intent behind his piece.

    And I think people should be careful when pulling out the “racism” card because everytime we misuse we lend credence to the reply, “Lighten up and learn how to take a joke.”

    Posted 11 Mar 2009 at 4:15 pm ¶

67. Katie wrote:

    “If this was about black people, it would never have…”

    “Unlike other kinds of racism, anti-Asian racism is totally ok…”

    Uh, NO. This is called Oppression Olympics. Every oppressed group has their oppression. There is enough to go around – don’t you worry about that.

    Also, take note that Racialicious has several posts about offensive, supposedly satirical emails containing anti-black racism. People have selective memories.

    Posted 11 Mar 2009 at 6:09 pm ¶

68. d '10 wrote:

    “What happened to satirizing your own community? ”

    that’s what he was doing…he was satirizing xenophobic white americans. the white americans who receive the ggmm every day understood that, but other students who had never received the ggmm and were forwarded the message out of context were obviously extremely hurt. unfoertunately, it really did come down to misinterpretation. if you think that repeating racial slurs for the purpose of satire is in itself a racist action, then that’s a conversation for society as a whole, but not something to blame on this one guy, because you see it on national television every day (family guy, colbert, the list goes on an on).

    Posted 12 Mar 2009 at 1:48 am ¶

69. Erika wrote:

    Whenever someone does something vaguely Stephen Colbert-like, they get it wrong. What the hell.

    Posted 12 Mar 2009 at 12:23 pm ¶

70. ListenToLeon wrote:

    I’m a comedian, and I regularly see other comedians fall flat on their faces while attempting racial humor. The key is to approach things from an intelligent angle, because it’s easy to make yourself look like an ignorant jack*ss, especially when you’re taking about a concept such as race. To do so requires a knowledge of and respect for the history or race in this country, as well as an awareness of the present state of society in general in order to properly work. Usually, people try to oversimplify things or fall back on stereotypes, and it leads to situations like this.

    Posted 15 Mar 2009 at 3:21 pm ¶

71. Bingcherry wrote:

    Frankly, I don’t accept the sincerity of Brother’s “apology”, because it is hard to imagine that he could not envisioned that many, if not most, people would be offended by the racist imagery. Even if he did intend it as satire, the fact that he didn’t care that such mocking racial images would be hurtful shows that he is generally contemptuous of Asians and people who work to put racist imagery and racism in general behind us. How can you satirize a racist by invoking the racist epithets used by a racist? Invoking racist stereotypes, or using words like chinaman or kike is always hurtful and humiliating no matter the context.

    Posted 26 Apr 2009 at 2:49 am ¶

72. Bingcherry wrote:

    Back in the 1990’s, Berkeley chancellor Chang-Lin Tien, a Chinese-American, was inundated by chants of ‘Buy American’ when he was introduced as the head of Cal-Berkeley at a press conference at a Florida college. Gary Locke, the former governor of Washington, received hundreds of racist hate mail messages following his response to the state of the union address in ‘03 and received numerous death threats against his children, and in addition was targeted by a white supremacist (who was later incarcerated) as reported by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Fact is, many Americans do not accept Asians as Americans so they cringe when they see them as leaders. That is why this ’satirical’ message by Brothers could have worked, on however twisted a level–because Americans really do see Asians, generally, as outsiders, foreigners and often villains. Why else is Hollywood able to get away with the consistent portrayal of Asians as gangsters and foreigners? Recent movies–Crossing Over, Gran Torino, Crash, and the Fast and Furious portray Asians as villains and/or dehumanize the more neutral Asian characters. Other movies, like ‘21′, change the real-life characters that they’re base on into Caucasians, whitewashing the stories. Fact is, Hollywood and the media refuse to portray Asians as regular Americans, or simply leave them out where they are highly represented–like on shows like ER or Grey’s Anatomy, which have never had a single Asian male character even though 22% of US doctors are Asian. Strangely enough, foreign actors from Australia, Britain, Ireland and the like are promoted while Americans of Asian actors are limited to playing foreigners or marginal characters.
    All of this translates into a general, if suppressed, hostility toward Asians, a feeling that they don’t really belong in America and have little to contribute. Is it any wonder, then, that this hostility surfaces in racist messages like the one seen at Dartmouth?

    Posted 26 Apr 2009 at 3:09 am ¶

73. Barnaby Jones wrote:

    I think even though he made an apology he still accomplished what he intended to do originally. stir up hate from insecure mindless people and then cover that truth with an apology. if I have a friend who out of anger or jest calls me a Nigger. whether I accept his apology he still managed to reach his goal by knocking me down and trying to show me that he thinks he’s better than me. it strips you of your dignity, and will make your heart sink especially when you felt like you belonged but come to find that nothing has really changed.

    You’re not alone…

    Posted 17 Sep 2009 at 9:28 pm ¶