April 8, 2009
Posted by yaman
Racist jokes draw the color line
For the most part, public and explicit expressions of extreme hate or animosity towards racialized groups of people are pretty easy to identify as wrong. Despite this, in certain spaces, the infamous ‘harmless racist joke’ persists because, as the defender says, it is not to be taken as a serious communication of ill-will.
Examples of these jokes can sound something like this (and I apologize for repeating them):
- “How was the Grand Canyon formed? A Jew dropped a penny down a manhole!”
- “How do you blind an Asian woman? Put a windshield in front of her!”
- “What’s the difference between a pizza and a Mexican? A pizza can feed four!”
Of course, the person delivering this joke loves to glamorize him/herself as a bold hero who is not afraid of “being offensive” and won’t let something silly like “political correctness” get in the way of his/her free speech. In this First Amendment martyr’s world, not only should it simply be legal to tell the racist joke, but it’s also a moral duty to do so. It’s only humor, after all.
But who’s humor is this? And, more importantly, who’s humor isn’t it?
My suggestion is that the racist character of these remarks is easier to recognize when we look at them in spatial terms rather than logical ones. The logic of the joke is the stereotype, which assimilates all people–arbitrarily designated on supposed racial grounds–into a singular figure that represents some other equally arbitrary noted ‘characteristic’ of this stereotype. To use Frederick Douglass’ words, in this schema certain criteria are randomly “coupled with color.” Because this way of looking at the world is not uncommon, many people don’t see the joke as problematic on these grounds alone.
It is clear, however, that the joke can only propagate and survive in certain spaces that it itself creates. The reason these kinds of remarks are preceded or followed by the look over the shoulders is that the speaker understands that there are certain spaces where he/she can get away with it, and certain spaces where he/sher might be held accountable for it. The speaker is making sure that the butt of the joke, the wronged party, is not around, so that they cannot retaliate.
But what about the butt of the joke? When you repeat a joke like this, you assert your immediate surroundings as your space. If the butt of the joke is Jewish, then you have asserted your space as a space not for Jews. Regardless of the target, that is the pronouncement of this joke: it not only assumes your space is non-Jewish (the look over the shoulders, for example), but it re-declares it as such.
Suddenly, the joke is no longer simply a question of flawed and racist logic, but a question of equity, a matter that determines who is allowed to enter and act in certain spaces. By looking at it this way, we shift from the joke’s content, judged independently in an imaginary objective or logical sphere, to its effect, judged according to what it does in the world. The demarcation of these exclusive spaces, where it is expected and asserted that there are no persons of so-and-so background, is the racist effect of this joke. It creates an environment where it becomes quite clear that people of the targeted background are not welcome, and if they are present, they are not equals.
When the speaker of this inequality feels emboldened to continue speaking, mistakenly invoking free speech as a defense, a particular power dynamic becomes evident, with the powerful party asserting his/her position by demeaning the other. The racist joke only goes in one direction, after all. That is why so much is at stake when discourse with racist undertones enters the public sphere, whether through cartoons or other media. That is why combating racism is not an evangelical quest to change the ways and ideas of individuals, but rather, a challenge to reshape our environment so that certain power dynamics are reformed to produce a more equitable and accessible field.
The “look over the shoulders” is a sign of the public unacceptability of these jokes. At the same time, it signifies a private comfort with them, and it declares the immediate setting as a space that welcomes some people but not others. It is a way for the speaker to judge whether or not the racist joke that draws the color line can be spoken here. Whether accepted or not, it is important to realize that this is what this kind of joke does: it draws the color line and proclaims who may or may not enter a certain space. The joke is not only logically fallacious, it literally segregates. All things considered, the racist joke is not a laughing matter.
27 Comments
April 8, 2009
What about the case where the “butt of the joke” is around during the telling of the joke or if the “butt of the joke” is the one telling the joke?
April 8, 2009
What’s a Jewish man’s biggest dilemma?
Free ham…
Now chill out.
April 8, 2009
You make some solid points, Yams, but I have some objections similar to the question asked by Mr./Ms. Raffi. In the beginning you point to the joke-tellers confidence in being offensive and not being concerned with “political correctness”, but this is contradictory to the whole act of glancing over the shoulder (as you also point out). However, people like myself, who truly aren’t concerned with political correctness on given racial topics, don’t glance over their shoulder because we truly feel some forms of racial humor are harmless, and even go so far as to negate racism. If people can have a laugh at the notion that asians leave their blinkers on forever or white people are angry, irrational drivers, while not excluding those parties in the joke, doesn’t that do more to erode tensions than propagate them?
April 8, 2009
Maysaloon, seriously, how dare you? I had to debate to myself whether to delete your comment, but I thought I should leave it here as a testimony to your hypocrisy. It’s just not funny.
Raffi, I think you have a good point. I think these jokes can be employed ironically, or in specific contexts. For example, there’s the theme of the Jewish or Arab or Black comedian who (usually to an audience of the same persuasion) pokes fun along these cultural lines. I tend to think it’s pretty rude when somebody tells you a joke where your ‘people’ are the butt of it, esp if they think they have a right to subject you to that… and usually I end up losing a little respect for people in the process. Of course you can make a distinction between people who truly say these jokes maliciously or they say it humorously, but they make me uncomfortable pretty much across the board. What mainly bothers me though is when people tell me jokes where some other group of people is the target, and they expect me to enjoy it or sympathize with it. i definitely lose more respect for people when that happens.
Danny, I mean, I’ll grant you that there can be jokes with malicious intent and jokes with no harm intended, but that doesn’t guarantee they don’t have harmful effects. I’ll also say that I don’t think racism only arises when people have negative feelings. In any case, I just don’t really think it’s funny, but maybe that’s because I don’t believe in groups of people in the first place. And actually, maybe there is some truth to the claim that being able to exchange these jokes freely reflects some sort of equality or lack of tension, but I think it still asserts a separation between people: ie, I still see you as white, or asian, or black, or mexican, etc.
April 8, 2009
Maysaloon, “Chill out” sounds like “take it like a man”, don’t show all these “feminine” feelings like being sad or hurt or hoping people didn’t have such negative and harmful stereotypes. Think of generations of women who were laughed at for wanting to be “like men” and expecting equal rights. There’s a huge tradition of mysogenist jokes:I’ve even heard rape jokes. Should we chill out about those too?
April 8, 2009
great post…
April 9, 2009
Yaman,
I actually can’t believe you are writing this. In fact I don’t think a male has ever said to me “seriously, how dare you?”. There is a certain credibility one gains when saying these jokes after having gotten their hands dirty with the world. The route to that credibility is getting a real job.
Tom,
Chillout does sound “like” what you said, but it also sounds “like” other things. I meant the other things because I actually like Yaman. As for the meaning you are gunning for, I think that ” don’t show all these “feminine” feelings” sounds like “stop being such a f*g and toughen up”.
As for the tradition, I’m always happy to share and learn. Have you got any new ones?
April 9, 2009
Nicely done.
That said, to Raffi’s point, what about comics like Sarah Silverman who make a point of publicly telling such jokes and bashing all groups “equally?” I’m not condemning nor condoning, but I’ve definitely laughed at her humour, and in all types of mixed company. Is it the act of explicitly bringing such humour into the open that makes it okay?
On the other hand, when I hear someone repeat one of her jokes and look over his/her shoulder when doing so, I’m suddenly uncomfortable.
April 9, 2009
I think Raffi’s questions are pretty interesting, I hope he elaborates more on his own thoughts about it.
April 9, 2009
We generally agree if society is to be decent, it must assume some kind of characteristic of social justice. Generalizations, crude, and impotent jokes seem to deny that suppress that aspect of social justice in society by ignoring the facts and histories that have come to define who we are today.
The act of telling these jokes has the implication of ignoring the facts and histories that has created our current state of the politics of ethnicity. These jokes assume that certain populations are all the same, that they are all homogeneous (for the good and bad – ie colored/ non colored)
This assumption ignores the rather violent and disturbing histories of colonialism, imperialism, segregation, and discrimination that has created for the displaced a new hybrid identity. It creates the illusion that these histories have not dramatically changed the makeup of a dispossessed people’s culture and identity, but in fact they are exactly the same (emphasis: not affected by imperialism) and we can be seen in the same light as the people who we have been forcibly detached from. That Mexicans in Mexico will always be the same as Mexicans in the United States and this kind of logic can be placed within any context. While in reality, when we choose not to create illusions, these people have been dramatically changed. The forced migration does indeed come at a heavy cost. The conflicts and struggles that come with these different ethnicities carry a heavy personal burden of confusion, self doubt and at the extreme part of the spectrum – self hate.
These issues cannot be solved by simply ignoring these complications, by simply molding our society through the black and white…ethnic or not ethnic (whatever that means in relative terms). For we now live in a society of many conflicting identities, colored and rich, white and poor, Asian and minority. The question is how we challenge these conflicting identities without recycling the process of othering that has created this particular problem in the first place. I feel like these jokes do indeed recycle that process for they do not properly give a subtext of the reasons why they exist etc. etc.
I’m not saying there is no space for jokes, but thinking critically at what is at stake, what is gained, and what are the costs and overall how they – like Yaman said – form the space and social environment around us.
April 10, 2009
Yaman, I think you have the “look over the shoulder” backwards. It’s not an assertion that this is “your” space, but a courtesy that “they” (whoever they might be in the instance) have the right to have “their” space free of it. Those who tell such jokes to people they don’t know or trust to not be hurt by them can be described to be boorish asses, and those who tell you such jokes may be making a bad judgment.
Then again, this may be a reflection of the different circles we run in, because almost without exception, among my friends, any race joke will reference the race of someone either telling or hearing the joke. It’s not a matter of ensuring none of “them” are around, it’s a matter of ensuring that nobody is going to be hurt, and you won’t know among strangers.
In other words, it’s not an assertion that “the immediate setting as a space that welcomes some people but not others” but rather that it’s a space that welcomes some forms of humor but not others, no different from how you’d gossip with your drinking buddies but not with your professor.
April 12, 2009
So basically, my thoughts are aligned with Beetle’s. The case of when the “butt of the joke” is present demonstrates the confidence in the joke teller that the listeners will not take the joke the wrong way (meaning that the listeners don’t actually believe that the joke teller thinks that the stereotypes are true, he/she’s just playing off of the stereotype for humor’s sake). So in that case, the look over the shoulder can simply be because a stranger to the joke teller does not know the intentions of the teller and the teller would not want that stranger to think that he/she actually believes those stereotypes/prejudices to be true. I think that this case exists along with the case where looking over the shoulder occurs because the teller does not want strangers to know that he/she actually does believe the stereotype associated with the joke.
With regards to Jillian’s comment, when talking about how the same joke coming from different mouths can lead to different comfortability, I think that has to do with a person’s confidence in how they are they going to be perceived. While Sarah Silverman can tell these jokes with confidence that she won’t seriously be considered a racist, someone else can repeat the joke and maybe not be so certain that the words will be taken with the same understanding.
April 13, 2009
The fact that we look over our shoulders to see if the said-party is present and listening cannot seriously be passed off as a benevolent act–people don’t solely do it for fear of misinterpretation; otherwise, they wouldn’t so righteously claim freedom of speech once another party claims to be offended. I think the spatial segregation would still exist because the joke-teller automatically assumes that someone from that identity would inherently be offended and it reveals that, despite the joke-teller’s claim that he is beyond racism, he still aligns people’s supposed identity with an assumed reaction of offense from them. The fact that we would expect the said-party to misinterpret the joke also calls into question the benefit gained from actually telling the joke.
No one is afraid of showing someone an Onion article–because that’s obvious satire, and it actually pushes for some sort of improvement of the status quo. Racial jokes maintain continuity of segregation regardless of intent (and I think that’s the hardest part to grasp for the joke-teller); there are obvious exceptions to this–when the joke is presented with actual wit (and not just farce or ignorance); otherwise, I cannot see how, on the whole, those types of jokes can be of any benefit.
April 13, 2009
Yaman, how did this come up?
April 15, 2009
Yes, there are boorish folks who look over their shoulders for folks of the relevant racial group and whine about free speech. Those people are not going to be the ones who care what anyone here has to say.
Among people who would care, though, they’re usually looking over their shoulder for strangers or folks who would be offended, not folks of the relevant race. This is why the presence of someone of that racial group isn’t going to preclude telling the joke within a group of friends.
If you want to discuss the “benefit” of jokes, it’s not going to be different than a discussion of the benefit of humor. Few will be willing to circumscribe their behavior in comfortable spaces because that behavior indicates that those spaces really are comfortable and free from unknown, unpredictable qualities such as strangers.
April 15, 2009
Yaman, I agree with your post, except in my one-on-one interactions with you….haha. Joking.
Have you read Jane Hill’s “Language, Race, and White Public Space?” In this piece, she makes arguments about the usage of “Mock Spanish” that parallel yours. I suggest you take a look. She points out how whites subtly indirectly index Spanish by “mixing’ their English with Spanish in contexts ranging from coffee-shop chat to faculty meetings to the evening network newscasts and the editorial pages of major newspapers. Their ‘Mock Spanish’ incorporates Spanish-language materials into English in order to create a jocular or pejorative ‘key.” Furthermore, Mock Spanish is covert, which makes it an even more powerful site for the reproduction of white racist attitudes. That’s because those who use Mock Spanish tend to not even realize the racist implications of their speech, which only heightens its danger. Also, it’s only really utilized in white space, which relates to your spatial argument.
Anyway, great post, and I think it’s vital that regardless of one’s perspective, we have open conversations about language.
April 20, 2009
responses to the example jokes:
1. What the fuck is a manhole?
2. Uh… Why wouldn’t you just poke her in the eyes? (pause for laughter) Maybe someone should put a windshield in front of your mouth so we don’t have to listen to your unoriginal jokes.
3. An entire pizza feeding only four people? Maybe that’s the case in YOUR fat-ass family…. I can predict that one day you’re going to be one of those parents whose baby weighs 20 pounds coming out the womb…. (btw: I know for a fact that your dumb ass can’t even feed yourself because your parents pay for you to be here)
I think humor is best countered by humor. Great post Yaman! Funny responses by people. Beetle, you’re living in a dream world (or under a rock… or potentially simply behind a computer or with a lot of un-sociable republicans) if you think the people who tell jokes like this are trying to be inclusive by looking over their shoulders. LOL.
April 21, 2009
You’re living in a dream world if that’s what you think I think.
April 24, 2009
jokes are harmless whether they are rascist or not. if people take them wrong then its there problem that they don’t have a sense of humor.
April 29, 2009
Seriously like 90% of of the supposed “ironically” racist shit I hear is just classically racist shit with the guy saying some shit to the effect of “I’m not racist so it’s okay” after. That is it’s not making fun of racists so much as a heehee I’m not supposed to say this and nobody cares when I cuss now that I’m out of junior high, it’s not very hard to see the difference.
Sarah Silverman is only funny when her jokes overtly reference the ignorance of her character, when it’s just a string of racial stereotypes it’s stupid and boring and that seems to be a lot of her shtick.
April 29, 2009
PARDON MY FRENCH.
May 23, 2009
Yeah, not my humor, like Husam, I did not get them?
To Raffi and Beetle’s comments, I do think that joke teller should sensor themselves around others in fear that they are going to “offend” someone. If someone is going to say something bigoted or ignorant it should not matter if there are people in the room/behind them who are going to put the joke teller in check. The greater point, I think, is the presumption that people think of or say such jokes in the first place.
Because, lets say that a rich white man was whispering a comment about black women at a party. Just because no black woman is there, or the one one black woman present does not care to respond, does not mean that the joke teller was not out of line or wrong, because if they were not wrong then they would not care who is listening. For example, Dave Chappell says hella bigoted things all the time, but he says them on public TV and in movies and he does not watch his back while doing so, nor does he care to be “politically correct.” He does not have to be at a party surrounded by like-minded people ready to laugh at anything, the world thinks he is funny, there is a reason. I really cannot explain but, you gotta admit, he’s hella funny.
The thing I think we should be taking away from this article is the implicit power dynamics that exist in such interactions. Another example: Woody Allen can say funny Jewish jokes but that is also available to the masses. When I hear someone I know is anti-Semitic say something bigoted about Jews I get really offended, and try and put them in check. When I hear Woody Allen say a Jewish joke about his mother in one of his movies, I laugh. There is a gut reaction we have when we hear or see things that are wrong or uncomfortable. Perhaps that is an arbitrary and emotive distinction but some things cannot be explained linearly, sometimes things do not have a clear criteria.
good/surprising article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/23/us/23lawyers.html?_r=2&hp
June 13, 2009
Interesting post and interesting responses.
I especially have to agree with Beetle’s analysis that one looks over his shoulder to make sure that nobody will be offended, not to make sure that nobody of the mentioned race is around. I, for example, enjoy telling and hearing Jewish jokes, when in good taste, and when told without malicious intent. (I am Jewish.) Among non Jewish friends, we know each other well enough to know what is acceptable.
I would like to pose an interesting example that might more clearly illustrate this point. Suppose I told a friend an off-color sexual joke, not demeaning towards anyone, but just plain vulgar. I might look over my shoulder first to make sure that nobody else is around, to protect someone else from unintended offense. Note that in this situation there is no person or party to whom the joke refers, but I am still cautious. This example serves to clearly isolate the ‘offensive’ aspect of jokes from the ‘racial’ aspect.
I do acknowledge the danger in telling any sort of joke that offends people, and agree that there is a very good argument in favor of not telling them at all, to be extra careful not to offend people. But I hold that the telling of a racial joke is not wrong in itself, especially since it about a largely fictional schema anyway.
I would like to ask Yaman what he meant by: “I don’t believe in groups of people in the first place.” Do you mean that groups don’t exist inherently in nature, we have no meaningful way of assigning them, or assigning them is possible but wrong?
I would also like to ask Mr. Jonathan Yee, who I hope will see this post, what he meant by the following quote, which I hope I misunderstood: “For we now live in a society of many conflicting identities, colored and rich, white and poor…”
June 15, 2009
Hi Brian, thanks for adding your voice to the discussion. On groups of people, I think the description for this group best aligns with what I meant: Groups of People are Fake. I mean they exist mainly in our heads, and they describe their members incompletely, and at the same time the members only partially belong to the group.
As for your analogy with the sexual joke, I don’t think it works perfectly. They are related in one respect. An off color sexual joke is about taboos that are not supposed to be discussed sexually. Racist jokes are only taboos to people who don’t believe they are inherently fucked up, but only appreciate the fact they shouldn’t share them publicly (oddly enough, this is where people start taking out their frustration on political correctness as opposed to racism). For the butt of the joke, these jokes are marginalizing and oppressive, not merely offensive.
I can appreciate the fact that you can enjoy cultural humor, which I think is fine too. But I think there is a qualitative difference between disparaging jokes and ones in good taste.
June 28, 2009
I understand the distinction you are describing. I see how it’s different when there is a target of the joke. Blind jokes would be a better analogy, in which case you would be more careful about offending blind people than those who can see.
September 4, 2009
Interesting debate here. I’ve had some flak in response to my recently published novel SHAIKH-DOWN (Google it if you’re interested), a comedy about sex-mad Arabs busily bonking gold-digging British and US airhostesses on an ‘imaginary’ island in the Persian Gulf. Yes, there stereotypes, but there was a lot of this kind of inter-racial naughtiness going on when I lived in the region (I did some myself: call it research.)
At the core of my ‘comic masterpiece’ (let’s not be modest!)is a true event: the abduction and murder of a teenage boy by the Secret Police. Shades of Pinochet’ Chile. A lot of this went on (still does?) in those conservative states so dear to US presidents and UK prime ministers.
I’ve also tried to address the dilemma of being a gay Arab (male or female) in a culture where Arranged Marriages are still commonplace. Not easy to be Glad to be Gay in the Muslim world.
Why is my book a comedy and not a polemic? Sometimes comedy is the sharpest weapon in our armoury.
November 11, 2009
I find Maysaloon’s joke offensive. I’m Jewish and I keep strictly kosher. I would not be tempted by free ham, nor would most Jews that are observer kosher dietary laws.
Leave a comment