The politics of racial satire

I know I'm about two weeks behind on talking about the now infamous New Yorker cover of the Obamas--the one that was meant to be satirical.


[This is the cover in question]

There have been A LOT of talking heads, bloggers, and journalists who have weighed in on this issue already--The Huffington Post (this is actually a Q&A with New Yorker editor, David Remnick, but it contains a link to Rachel Sklar's own take (and several comments) about the cover, Racialicious (who talks about its link to hipster racism and the long comment threads are, as always, very interesting reading), and The New York Times, which gives an account of political satire in the general public sphere related to the upcoming presidential elections.

And really, after all these people have said so much, what exactly do I have to add to all this?

Simply this: racial satire is difficult and is best avoided by any but the most practiced and skilled of humorists.

According to the on-line Merriam-Webster dictionary, satire is defined as:

1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly

One of the most famous satirists, Jonathan Swift, was reviled after he wrote "A Modest Proposal" in which many readers did not understand that he was not seriously proposing cannibalism as a remedy to poverty in Ireland. The essay is now a model for exactly what the definition of satire suggests--it uses irony and trenchant wit to expose the ridiculousness and vice of the impoverished situation of many in Ireland living under British colonial rule.

Now racial satire is a more distinct entity than satire--it's not simply political satire as The New York Times article wants to suggest; racial satire hinges on a distinct understanding on the parts of the person creating the satire and her/his audience. It requires, in other words, an understanding of racism and in the U.S. what those conditions have been like for various groups--what those stereotypes are--so that the send-up, the sarcasm, the satire will be successful.

And racial satire seems best practiced when the person who is doing the satire is sending up the racial group that s/he identifies with. Hence Margaret Cho's routine when she talks about being Korean and Asian American can be seen as satirical because she is mocking both mainstream culture (largely white) as well as her fellow Korean and Asian Americans. And it's easier for us to take her racial satire because she is speaking from an in-group position.

Similarly, in "The Racial Draft" skit, Dave Chappelle introduces his skit by talking about his Asian American wife and the difficulties of multiracial identification. His personal admission lets us know that he is speaking from a place of experience--and if he has children, they will be part of the "confusion" that he is trying to satirize.

Yet even with Cho and Chappelle, there can be moments of discomfort--times when I laugh and I wonder what, exactly, am I laughing at...and moments of discomfort wondering if the other people around me (I've been to several of Cho's live shows) really "get" the joke.

Racial satire, and really, racial humor in general, are so tricky that a comedian as skilled as Dave Chappelle has cancelled his show, in part, because he was disturbed by some white people not getting the satire--not understanding that what he was trying to do was to expose the absurdity of race and racism in a humorous vein and not simply to mock African Americans and others.

[BTW, this is what I've largely heard reported about Chappelle--but does anyone have a link to an interview he has done that specifically talks about the reasons he ended his show?]

The New Yorker cover failed, in my opinion, largely because a magazine like The New Yorker isn't skilled in handling racial satire and not only didn't show an appropriate sensitivity but also failed to make that satire clear--as one commenter noted in the Racialicious thread, if this image had appeared in the heads of an anxious, white conservative voter, or even an "average white American" and then another thought bubble appeared with an "average African American" or even the Obamas' themselves picturing the scene very differently, THEN, maybe, we could see the satire better.

But even had they done this, The New Yorker is indelibly marked as an elitist magazine, one associated with the New York upper-East side intelligensia, largely marked as white (albeit liberal). If this same image had appeared on the cover of Ebony or Jet or Hyphen or Colorlines, I think there would have been a different reaction--some people may have still talked about the inappropriateness of the cover, but the context would have changed a lot--the readership of these magazines would be assumed to have more access to the stereotypes and to understanding the racism inherent in what was trying to be satirized. And the staffs and editorial boards (and editors-in-chief) of these magazines would be assumed to be either people or color or white allies who understand the fraught dynamics of race and racism and the trickiness of racial satire.

Because at the end of the day, some things aren't funny. And while I know The New Yorker was trying to talk about the politics of fear and anxiety that lead some people to view the Obamas through the lens of the cover, the unfortunate reality is that like in Swift's 18th C. Ireland, many people didn't get the joke and just assumed that the cover was a reflection of reality rather than a mirror held up to the racist fantasies of some people.

Racial satire: The Racial Draft

Since I really AM planning to write about racial satire later in the week, I thought I'd provide an example of racial satire from someone who has now retired from the limelight, Dave Chappelle. This is one of the most famous skits that he did from his now defunct show.



There are actually things about this skit that I do wonder about--like "Jews" being depicted as a "racial" category, and the slide between "Asian" and "Chinese" that happens. And there's once again an absence of indigenous people. But as an example of racial satire, I think this one is a pretty prime example (with some pretty funny bits).

The educator hat

I, as regular readers of this blog know, am a golfer. And I found myself recently playing with 2 good friends and a 4th person who joined our group on the back 9 (he was a solo player and asked if he could join us rather than playing through).

This fourth add-on, "D," was in his late 60s, white, very physically fit (he qualified for the Boston Marathon recently) and was a nice enough guy--decent golfer. And according to golf etiquette, you make chit-chat as you play, so he talked with my friends "S" and "T" about what he does, about restaurants, his children and grand-children, and then he, in turn, asked us about our line of work (we're all professors) and when he got to me, I told him I was working on a book, and that led to him asking what about, and I said, "racial ambiguity" and then I braced myself.

Because the truth is, I didn't want to talk to him about my book. At least not on the golf course and not at that moment. Because I knew that I might have to make a choice--it's one that many of you may have had to face in certain situations--the moment when a stranger you are chatting with on an airplane, at a grocery store, in the subway makes a comment that you find offensive/invasive/inappropriate/distasteful/crass/ignorant/racist/sexist/bigoted/homophobic/out-of-line and you have to decide: is this a teachable moment and do I want to be that teacher.

I managed to steer the conversation to safe waters with "D" by talking about my last chapter, which is on Tiger Woods, and then focusing on Tiger's recent injury and his amazing win at Torrey Pines.

Why did I avoid talking to "D" about issues of race? Wouldn't this potentially be a prime moment for me to educate him? To talk about issues of diversity? To address any misperceptions (if he had any) about mixed-race Asian Americans or about race in general?

The truth is, I didn't have my educator's hat on, and I didn't want to put my educator's hat on. And it's something I struggle with when I find myself in public and debating: should I say something or should I let things go? And it's something I struggle with because my radar is tuned very high with respect to issues of race/gender/sexuality (I'd add class, but the truth is, that's a weak spot with me--I'm too comfortable in my middle-class privilege sometimes). Sometimes I just want to play golf with my friends. Because golf etiquette dictates that when someone asks if he can play with you (when he's a solo guy--and I'm using that gendered pronoun deliberately because I've never had a solo woman ask to play--I've probably seen a total of 3 women playing solo in my four-plus years of playing regular golf) that you say yes, there wasn't much I could do. And really, it's a good rule in golf. It teaches you to meet other people and to be civil, and that's the other golf etiquette rule--to try to be civil--you've got 9 holes to play together--thats about 2 hours on the course together. I didn't want to get weird and angry and righteous. I don't even know if "D" would have said anything to make me feel that way, I just know from previous experiences with people that talking about race and racial ambiguity with me often gives total strangers license to say things that I find offensive or at least mildly irritating and then I have to debate about putting my educator's hat on. And sometimes I don't want to educate. I just want to play golf.

Or make 5 photocopies. I was recently reminded of this because a post I wrote a year ago, "Do I need to travel to China," has recently been crossposted on Anti-Racist Parent, and there's a very interesting and lively discussion going on there based on the interaction I had with one older white male gentleman who thought I was "Hawaiian."

I am a teacher--it is in my blood--it is a calling. But it's exhausting to feel like you are always "on"--to have to make that choice right in the moment of whether you are going to put on your educator's hat.

(sigh)

I am feeling like this is a whiney way to end this post. I'm not trying to complain--certainly not about the fact that I avoided talking about race openly with a stranger on a golf course. That just sounds stupid. What I am saying is that I wish people would sometimes stop and think about what they are asking and to whom. Because I don't want to tell you where I'm from or have you tell me (as one woman did recently) that a black coach calling a kid "whitey" is the same as a white coach calling a kid "n****" and I don't want to explain to you that I'm not from Hawaii, even if you think I *look* Hawaiian. I just want to go about my life and play golf and buy groceries and make my photocopies like everyone else.

But if you really want to know what I think about race and racism and ways to have conversations about race, then by all means, find your way to this blog or enroll in one of my classes at Southern U. Then you will have my undivided attention and my educator's hat will be firmly in place. But on the golf course? I just want to worry about whether I should be using my nine iron or my pitching wedge to make it to the green.

Margaret in the morning

This is an excerpt from Margaret Cho's stand-up routine I'm the One That I Want (the best of the DVDs in my opinion).


[Racial humor is a hard medium but I think Cho has nailed a lot of the stereotypes and blunders that Asian Americans encounter with some pretty funny zingers "Thank you Mr. Eddy's father"--a dated reference to the tv series The Courtship of Eddy's Father]

I'll be talking more about racial satire this week so I thought I'd prime the pump with this tidbit.

T.G.I.F.: Free college, Berea college

A few days ago The New York Times did a story on Berea College in Kentucky, a college founded in 1855 that does not charge tuition. That's right--if you get accepted into Berea and matriculate, you don't pay a dime in tuition (and they are ranked #75 among small liberal arts colleges according to U.S. News and World Report--which we should all take with a grain of salt, these rankings, but figured I'd include them for what they are worth).

This is a description of Berea from their college website:

Berea College is distinctive among institutions of higher learning. Founded in 1855 as the first interracial and coeducational college in the South, Berea charges no tuition and admits only academically promising students, primarily from Appalachia, who have limited economic resources. Berea’s cost of educating a student exceeds $23,000 per year.

[View of sunset from Berea college athletic fields]

According to their "About the College" site, 1 in 3 students at Berea are also members of an ethnic minority. So here we have a college that is free, that was the first interracial and coeducational college to open its doors in the South (and this during a time well before the likes of Brown vs. Board of Education and well before places in the South like Vanderbilt and Sewanee were opening its doors to African Americans and women), and whose mission is to educate promising students who wouldn't normally be able to afford the exorbitant tuition and cost of living at places like Harvard, Swarthmore, and Stanford.

That, is truly a Great Impossible Feat.

Hating the racism not the racist

Jay Smooth at Ill Doctrine breaks down how to have a conversation with someone who makes a racist statement (tip of the hat to Racialicious--btw, you should read their comment thread because Jay Smooth chimes in with his two-cents as comment #25)



It's good advice, because he's right--calling people "racist" (even if you KNOW they are) shuts down the conversation pretty quickly. I don't mean that you shouldn't call people on their stuff. But if you really want someone to hear you and make change, then calling them names (even if it's accurate) won't accomplish much in the way of making them see your point. Plus, the further truth is, it's obvious. And I don't mean that it's obvious that the person is racist because s/he made a racist statement, I mean that we have been living in a nation imbued with white supremacy* and white privilege, so OF COURSE almost all of us are racist to various degrees and have internalized these beliefs--people of color and non-people of color alike. So saying the obvious doesn't push the conversation to the point where you get people to STOP saying racist stuff.

[*Note about "white supremacy": I know some people will read this and assume I mean white people in white sheets burning crosses. That's not what I mean. Sure the KKK and other "white pride" groups are part of a white supremacist ideology, but they are easy targets to take down and even to understand--in other words, their brand of hatred is so over-the-top (and violent) that it's easy to condemn and to brand as "white supremacy." The harder kind to understand--the one that I'm talking about, is the subtle (and not so subtle at times) ways in which the foundation of this country has been a racial hierarchy that reinforces the message that the more white-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant you are, the better--that those who are most "white" hold the most power and are most attractive, most intelligent, most capable, most American. Everyone else has to try to get as "white" as they can if they want access to the goods, if you will. Hence, "darker" Euro-Americans like Italians and Irish, ones originally marginalized and vilified ("wop" is an acronym for "without papers"--undocumented people--illegal aliens), eventually achieved "whiteness," in some cases because they were contrasted with a worse, less white, unassimilable group (in the 1ate 19th C. the debate was whether Irish or Chinese were the worse pestilence in terms of immigrants. Irish lost--they got to be "white"--Chinese were relegated to "yellow peril"). For more, read David Roediger's The Wages of Whiteness.]

Now, having said that, just calling people on their stuff doesn't mean that they thank you or that they even apologize. Most of the time when you tell someone in whatever way, polite or rude, that what they just said was offensive because of [fill in the blank] and that you have construed their comment as "racist"--that person will (a) get defensive (b) call YOU a racist for turning every conversation into one about race (c) re-direct the conversation (d) tell you that s/he is not racist and s/he has LOTS of friends who are black/Asian/Latino/American Indian.

And THAT kind of reaction can drive you to want to (a) throw heavy and sharp objects at this person (b) sputter incoherently until your eyeballs roll back in their sockets (d) call them all sorts of names (including screaming YOU ARE A [pick your expletive of choice] RACIST! (d) all of the above

I was once at a cocktail party and had grown so passionate and righteous that I literally cornered a guy (the type I like to call WIWL: Well Intentioned White Liberal) and pointed my index finger at him, jabbing the air to punctuate my points, particularly the one in which I said "What are YOU doing to end racism in this country!"

WIWL did not hear me. I didn't call him a racist directly, but everything else about our interaction clearly indicated that if I was in a forced-choice exercise (racist/anti-racist) that I would have slotted him in the big "R." The glass-half-full part of me would like to think that I managed to get into his head, somewhere and somehow. And that maybe, just maybe, this will get him to re-think some of his positions--or at the very least to realize that he is going to get called out on racist bullshit like saying "I don't understand why black people have separate churches and can't go to a regular church like everyone else." AGHHH!!!!!! But more likely what I did was shut down the conversation because all he heard was "this woman is calling me a racist."

So what should we do? It's hard to hate the racism and not the racist, but it IS important to do that if we want to engage in effective anti-racist practices (and cornering someone and pointing your finger at them is NOT effective--it is hard for me to practice what I preach, I admit. I'm trying though...I really am). But if anyone else has any practical strategies for dealing with these scenarios, I'm sure everyone is all ears (or eyes rather).

[BTW: If anyone is confused about how I am using terms like "racism" and "anti-racist practice" you can look to one of the sidebars that breaks down key selections of previous posts on issues of race (as well as mixed-race and Asian American issues) or you can go to this previous post "Defining Racism."]

Mixed race reading (and viewing)

In a continuation of the reading recommendations I've been making this week for race/anti-racism & fun summer fiction, let me now make a plug for some key selections of mixed-race reading.

*Half and Half: Writers on Growing Up Biracial and Bicultural. Claudine Chiawei O'Hearn, editor. New York: Pantheon (1998)
--Good collection of first-person essays by a range of people who identify as mixed heritage and multiracial or written by parents in interracial relationships discussing their thoughts about their children's identities and how being in a mixed family impacts them (Gish Jen's essay, in particular, addresses this issue). One of my favorites in this collection is Danzy Senna's "The Multatto Millennium"--it's very tongue-in-cheek.

*Mixing It Up: Multiracial Subjects. SanSan Kwan and Kenneth Spiers, editors. Austin: University of Texas Press (2004).
--This is more "academic" in nature--largely because it is written by academics, but it offers a broad range of essays that ruminate on various mixed race issues, like Naomi Zack's essay on multiraciality and the 2000 census and issues of mixed race in popular culture.

*Interracial Intimacies: Sex, Marriage, Identity, and Adoption. Randall Kennedy. New York: Pantheon Books (2003).
--I know I've mentioned this book before, but it's really a very solid book, through and well researched, and really gets at the legal and social issues surrounding interracial relationships of various sorts, not just marriage or partnerships but also familial ones. Kennedy is a professor at Harvard Law and his legal training shows in the court cases he analyzes, but court cases are important when looking at issues of "miscegenation" or the better contemporary term, interracial relationships.

On the fiction side of things, let me introduce you to some mixed-race authors whose protagonists or plot-lines also pivot on issues of multiraciality--I won't give you a blow by blow because I could go on and on about these works, but you can google them to find plot synopses, and I GUARANTEE--these books are both very enjoyable/pleasure reading as well as reflecting some mixed-race experiences:

*Caucasia -- Danzy Senna

*My Year of Meats -- Ruth Ozeki

*The Painted Drum -- Louise Erdrich

*Edinburgh -- Alexander Chee

*Mixed: An Anthology of Short Fiction on the Multiracial Experience -- Chandra Prasad, editor

For some on-line reading, check out this post from Racialicious, "Not Quite White: When Racial Ambiguity Meets Whiteness," especially the comments (there are almost 100 at the time of this posting). The comments section on Racialicious are almost better than the posts themselves--in this case, you get to hear, directly, from people who live their lives with racial ambiguity.

Finally, check out this animated short by mixed-Japanese-Canadian Jeff Chiba Stearns (tip of the hat to Angry Asian Man). Stearns calls this genre "hapanimation" in honor of his mixed-race heritage. Check out his website Meditating Bunny--he's clearly a VERY talented guy!

Reading about race

Since yesterday's post was devoted to fun summer reading and fiction, I thought I'd focus today's post on some more meaty material--books about race and anti-racism.

I confess that this post is really inspired by the one at Anti-Racist Parent "If I Was in Charge of Revising MEPA: Some Books for White People Adopting Black Children." Lots of folks ended up writing in their own recommendations in the comment section.

So here are my own "Must Reads" for anyone interested in good books that cover issues of race and racism and anti-racist work. Some of them are theoretically dense, others are really a collection of excerpts from longer works. But all are really good at tackling issues of race.

*Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s. Michael Omi & Howard Winant. Second edition. New York & London: Routledge (1994).
--I was assigned the first edition of this work as a freshman at UCSB taking my very first Asian American studies class. It is required reading in any class I teach on race. There is supposed to be a third "Millennium" edition coming out, but the second, like the first, is solid work--especially Chapter 4 on "Racial Formation."

*"Why Are All The Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?": A Psychologist Explains the Development of Racial Identity. Beverly Daniel Tatum. Revised edition. New York: Basic Books (2003).
--A great book for anyone who has ever asked this question or been asked this question (or its variation) for why kids cluster along ethnic/racial lines (with the questioner sometimes implying that there is something wrong with this). Beverly Tatum is the current president at Spelman College and is an amazing scholar and speaker. And this book is foundational reading on child development and race in America. In many ways, it complements Omi & Winant by literally fleshing out the theory that they propose by looking at the actual adolescents and young adults going through the process of racial formation.

*White Privilege: Essential Readings on the Other Side of Racism. Paula S. Rothenberg, editor. Second edition. New York: Worth Publishers (2005).
--This is a great collection of essays on white privilege. And any discussion of race and racism should also be a discussion of white privilege. The list of contributors reads like a "Who's Who" of race reading and writing: bell hoooks, George Lipsitz, Tim Wise, and many others. One of my favorite essays is by Peggy McIntosh "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" (it's in Part III). In fact, the collection is dedicated to her as one "who led the way."

*We Who Are Dark: The Philosophical Foundations of Black Solidarity. Tommie Shelby. Cambridge: Harvard University Press (2005).
--This is probably the most dense reading in this recommended list, but it's also very thorough in its discussion of the history of black racial identity--its political and philosophical roots linked with the history of the U.S. and the legacy of the transatlantic slave trade. One of the things Shelby is trying to do is to talk about black identity as a social identity and viable group identity that isn't always commensurate with Black Nationalism. Shelby is careful not to dismiss Black Nationalism, but in the world of postmodernist philosophy and race, the dismantling of any ethnic-national groups is part of the status quo--Shelby is trying to show how group racial identities are still important while also acknowledging the fictive qualities of race and the problematics of relying solely on a Black National identity and political agenda.

*Honky. Dalton Conley. New York: Random House (2000).
--During the fall semester a few years back, I literally had a student in my "Mixed Race America" class chase me across campus and hand me this book. He had heard Conley speak at his high school and had been so impressed and thought that the issues we were discussing in class--ones about racial identity, cross-racial identifications, allies across color lines, class, race, gender, sexuality, and most importantly racism and white privilege, were all encompassed in Conley's autobiography. He was right. I finished the book in a weekend and was sorry that I had discovered it too late to put on my syllabus. Dalton Conley is a social psychologist at NYU, and his autobiography is informed by his social psychologist's eye. But it is also a raw, engaging, entertaining, thoughtful, and thoroughly honest look at race and white privilege through the eyes of a man who grew up the only white kid in a black-Latino housing project in NYC.

*Disoriented: Asian Americans, Law, and the Nation-State. Robert Chang. New York: New York University Press (1999).
--I'd be remiss not to include a work by a legal scholar who works in critical race studies, especially one as good as Chang. At a slim 180 pages (and that includes the footnotes and index) this book is a must-read for anyone who wants to be able to argue for affirmative action, especially because as Chang knows all too well, Asian Americans have been used as that wedge group to argue AGAINST those policies (and I've written about Chang and this issue before). The book, however, isn't only about affirmative action--it's also about the history of Asian Americans in U.S. jurisprudence and the primacy of placing Asian Americans into any discussion of race in the U.S.

Anyway, these are my recommendations for key books on race, racism, white privilege, and anti-racist practices. Feel free to leave your own in the comment section.