General Larry Platt’s “Pants on the Ground” and the Intersection of Race and Comedy
So often when we see people of colour do comedy in spaces that are not anti-racist – or not controlled by people of colour – the framing of the scene encourages us to laugh at the person of colour, not with them. Think William Hung. Think Long Duk Dong. Think Virginiaca*.
Part of the joke discomfort that I spoke about earlier has to do with context and audience. Some jokes that I would happily laugh at in the comfort of my home, make me feel uncomfortable or even unsafe when I am in an environment where others don’t share my racial politics. We’ve talked about “in house” jokes before with reference to Bernie Mac. So often the appropriateness of race-based comedy depends on who the joke is for. In a discussion about Russell Peters vs Esther Ku, I argued that Peters’ jokes are funny because they are clearly made for an audience of colour, while Ku’s jokes are just plain offensive because they are about Korean people, but for white people.
Along with the fact that [Ku's] jokes are offensive (and not really funny), they send the message that audiences of colour are not important enough to write jokes for. In fact, all they’re good for is the butt of jokes. Just like ye olde status quo, Ku’s jokes place white folks at the center of everything.
Peters on the other hand talks about relationships between Indians and Chinese folks, between Indians and Jamaicans, between Indians and Latinos. More than this it really seems like Peters is simply trying to make people like himself laugh. There’s something sorta subversive about the fact that he’s playing to himself, instead of pandering to an audience that doesn’t share his experience at all.
When we hear a large group of non-black people or white people laughing at General Platt – do you think it was a coincidence that it was Sherri, rather than Elizabeth who did most of the interview with Platt? – it’s very different from when we see black folks laughing at “Pants on the Ground.”
Last weekend I went to a massive step competition, with a DJ battle in the middle. One of the DJs slayed the crowd when, in between the usual repetoire of club hits, he dropped “Pants on the Ground.” The entire crowd stopped dancing to sing along at the top of their lungs. When I wondered (via email with the Racialicious team) whether the exuberance in that moment was based in affection or mockery, Andrea had this to say:
But affection and mockery can coincide in the same communal laughter, Thea. For example, some older Southern Black folks, in quoting the Bible, say “God is not marked.” The actual quote is “God is not mocked.” When my moms and I go into giggles about it, we’re laughing at the pronounciation (stemming from our educational privilege, which is, more than likely, higher than those older Black folks we’re giggling about), but have a deep affection for the folks who said it because we understand those elders helped get us to this historical moment, as imperfect as it is.
I suspect the same dynamic may be at play with what happened at the step show, affection through the laughter. But I also wonder about context: Jimmy Fallon and other white late-night hosts mocking Platt may be construed differently than, say, an all-Black party laughing at and dancing to the song.
What is sort of nice about Platt is that, whether or not he intended to be comedic, it seems like a lot of audiences are reacting towards him with affection and joy, more than contempt; even though his overnight success may also be based in the fact that laughing at men of colour (or even elderly men) is just par for the course in our culture.
What do you think – is Platt funny because there is just something inherently delightful about his routine, or do we just like to laugh because it maintains a racial hierarchy where people of colour are always the fools?
*In the case of Virginiaca, we are actually encouraged by Keenan Thompson to laugh at a group of colour to which Thompson doesn’t belong: black women.
Page 2 of 2 | Previous page