You know, after giving it some thought, I can’t say with absolute certainty that the joke is, in and of itself, racist. That kind of thing (“Obama’s gonna turn the White House beige”) is a common symptom of racism, but it isn’t necessarily itself. It’s unnecessary, because Obama’s skin color should ideally be irrelevant, and kind of assholish, because IMO you have to be kind of an asshole, if not actually racist, to think it’s funny, but I can’t say that the joke, itself, is racist.
See post 119 and 135
**leander,
**
You seem pretty comfortable accusing someone of racism. And you may or may not be correct. But when someone asks for the definition you are using in judging that person’s words or actions and concluding that he or she is, in fact, a racist, well, you gotta man up and offer the definition.
If you want to be taken seriously, that is.
Overall I think Shodan is a pretty loathsome character. I think he’s pretty well known for being a jackass, which of course doesn’t make him a racist.
What does, in my opinion, is making jokes (even just one) about a person’s skin color. There is nothing funny about making racist jokes, even mild ones. As I’m sure you know there is a long and ugly history of racism in the US. We’re still struggling to move away from that. Racist jokes are moving in the wrong direction.
Obviously there are degrees of racisim - jokes are certainly on the mild end of the spectrum, but they’re still there.
And frankly, my “joke” about Shodan’s kids - which, for the record, I think is repugnant - was meant to illustrate my point.
Well, um, I’ll have a Coke, then.
That’s all fine and well, thank you. But why are you so reluctant to provide the definition of racism you’re using by which you judge whether people are racists. Seriously, do you not see that your not providing that makes it look like you’re going to apply the term loosely as you find convenient. It makes it hard to take you seriously. Really.
And it’s hard to take you seriously when you hand wave away our discussion just to whine about a definition.
I think I’ve been pretty clear: making fun of, making jokes, belittling, putting down people based on the color of their skin is racist. There is another semi-debate going on regarding Richard Pryor and Eddie Murphy, which of course will complicate the matter (and is actually quite interesting IMO).
But at the end of the day, making jokes based on the color of a person’s skin is racist IMO. And making jokes about homosexuality is homophobic, but I don’t think we need to debate the textbook definition of the word homophobic to understand that concept, do we?
With great respect, definitions are important. They tell everyone what we mean when we use a word or phrase. If you define racism as joking about the color of a person’s skin, then you’ve defined Chris Rock as a racist. If you define homophobia as joking about sexual orientation, then you’ve defined Ellen DeGeneres as homophobic. And both those are ridiculous.
That’s why Contrapuntal keeps poking you about your definitions. Again with all due respect, they’re not very good. How about these instead:
Racism: sincere denegration of a person on account of his/her race
Homophobia: fear of association with homosexuals
I disagree that it does that. Two distinctions:
-
The whole idea that Asian people are “yellow” is not an apparent physical fact, and descriptions of Asians as yellow is generally done in a racist context. So that gives it overtones of racism from the outset. By contrast, the idea that Blacks have brown skin is pretty much an obvious and accepted fact.
-
More importantly, in the case of the beige comment, it was playing into an already existing meme, i.e. the Sondheim lyric. Since everyone already agrees that something of this sort is a milder sort of racism if even that, the fact that it was a play on a Sondheim lyric makes it even more innocuous. By contrast, your example was an example of a completely gratuitous focus on skin color.
Paging Dr. Freud…
Even Mr. Rock doesn’t actually joke about the color of a person’s skin, per se (how much humor can possibly be mined from that concept anyway? Ur brown and I’m white hurrh hurrh!!!@) but rather about the tendencies of different groups of people to talk, think, and behave in different ways. Yes, in many cases, these groups self-identify—and identify each other—by ethnicity or (to dumb it down further) “skin color.”
And yes, he and other comics deal with stereotypes that obviously don’t apply to everyone—but if they weren’t based on tobservable behaviors, the jokes wouldn’t ring true and neither blacks nor whites would find them as funny as they do.
Was the Sondheim lyric made in the context of discussing the skin color of the occupants of said house? I think that actually makes a difference here. If so, then it’s a perfectly valid (although highly obscure) reference. If not, something a bit more sinister is at play here. I don’t know if I’d call it out and out racism, maybe just racial insensitivity, or maybe he just doesn’t give a shit and wants to rile people up and knows that making a comment that could be construed as racist would do it (an idea that is supported by the rest of the post). Either way, if the original line had nothing to do with skin color, then Shodan’s leap to equate it was probably not the best move.
Doesn’t appear so.
Oddly, I can find no real source for the lyric beyond this page.
That’s not context. That’s just your original assertions. Do you not know what context means?
That would mean that pretty much everyone who roasted Flava Flav on Comedy Central is a racist. Are they?
How about if I say “My boyfriend is brown as a nut, and it really makes me want to Filbert.” (Assuming I have a boyfriend, and his name is Bert.) Is that racist? It’s a joke about skin color. Not a very good one, admittedly, but still.
Are you beginning to see the problem with simply citing examples out of context as a definition? Like the one with Shodan. I have no idea what he was going for, but it seems likely to me that it was a joke, or perhaps an attempt to ruffle a few feathers. Until you put it into context, there is no reason to prefer one explanation over another. And until you offer a definition of your terms, you are merely spouting incoherent blather.
Okay, I called out SHodan here because of his apparent willingness to reduce everything social or governmental in nature to a partisan issue. The question he did this to was one where I posited a hypothetical: “IF evidence that Pres. G.W. Bush had committed high crimes came to lifht, evidence sufficient to convince the conservative Republicans (of which I used Orrin Hatch as an example) of his guilt, then would anything beneficial result from an impeachment and Senate trial now that he has left office?” (The answer, as it turned out, was “No.”) The implication, which I tried to make as clear as possible, is that it would be a bipartisan sense of outrage. What pissed me off enough to call Shodan out was his “If the Democrats do it, tbat’ll give us a precent to run impeachments whenever we regain control of Congress.” (Paraphrased, but the meaning is clear.)
Mine was a constitutional/procedural question – given the obstacles to a successful prosecution that a President can throw in its path, and the special benefits accorded ex-Presidents, would the act of going through an impeachment be of value even though its legal effects are limited to removal from office (moot) and potential barring from subsequent offices (presumably not worth the effort). I set up a hypothetical situtation involving Mr. Bush to ask that question. Shodan decided to reduce it to a partisan issue, and one that appears to suggest that Republicans (or at least many Republicans) are only interested in scoring partisan points, not providing good governance.
I phrased it in such a way as to give him an honorable way to correct me if I were misreading him. His response was to rub my nose in the very Constitutional point I had already conceded was true, laden with the most dense concentration of the participle “fucking” since pornography was required to have at least a skimpy plot.
Having said that, though, it was not my intent to set up a pile-on. And I frankly have never noticed Shodan say one thing racist in nature. Ever. I’m not alleging he never has, though I think it would be very out of character for him. But I am saying that I’ve never seen it, and I’m prepared to take the “beige” comment as what he said it was.
Unintended consequences — the very bane of modern American liberals. 
I think this is the source of the issue.
If one wants (as apparently leander does) to classify every joke that references skin color as racist, then obviously the joke would be racist. If (as I believe) the reference has to be derogatory to be racist, then no problem.
How you get “derogatory” from “We’re bringing back style to the White House, I’m painting it beige for a start” is a bit of a leap. I think leander and some others’ knees jerk hard enough that they can bring it off, though.
But the point is, I heard enough stuff about how wonderful and classy and delightful Obama and Michelle are. And, Obama is beige - people who are half-Black and half-white like he is, are beige. (Not gray, beige - calling an African-American “black” is a figure of speech. They are brown, not black, for the most part.)
But, even though he brings all this style to the White House, even though (thru his presence he turns it beige, stylishly), his administration may bomb. Just like the Sondheim musical.
Like I said, it’s not like explaining a joke helps.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t think the meaning was clear to you.
And, as I told you over and over again, no, it would not.
Impeachment is something the legislative branch does, and may only do it to those who currently hold office. So, no - it is not worth doing, because it is un-Constitutional.
Indictment is something the judicial branch does, and it may do so to anyone who they can get past a grand jury. For the legislative branch to attempt to “impeach” a private citizen is a serious violation of the limits on the Constitutional role of the several branches. Ever hear of something called “separation of powers”?
So, if Democrats in the House are fool enough to try something so far-beyond-idiotic-as-to-become-clearly-criminal, you’re darn right there’s going to be impeachments, but not of any non-office holders. Of the doggone idiots who abused their power.
I appreciate this.
Regards,
Shodan
You’re missing the point. It’s not that the Sondheim quote is or isn’t about skin color. It clearly isn’t. But you quoted it specifically because of Obama’s skin color. That’s not cool, man.
Regards,
Shodan