A longer clip with Colbert’s ching chong character:
Honestly, it didn’t sound any different from what they do on South Park. He’s ridiculing that kind of shit.
I understand that, and I still think it’s a bit ugly and inappropriate, just like blackface or a water-melon loving, jive-talking “black” character meant to ridicule that particular stereotype.
I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree – fair?
Sure. Hopefully at least you see where I’m coming from.
I still think you’re missing the point. He was putting the performance in the mouth of a person who was performing an ugly racial stereotype. Condemning that means that you can never portray someone being a racist in order to satirically condemn racism.
Are we going to start criticizing Chappelle for his ‘white people voice’?
How about we just let it go and let the communities themselves speak out? Not that I’m saying they haven’t…
And no, I don’t think it’s a false equiv because the quoted bar is set at ‘racist tropes for laughs’
Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations:
No it doesn’t - it just means some things, IMO, are more damaging then helpful. Would you disagree that it would have been inappropriate for him to do a jive talking, watermelon loving character? Or blackface? Or an obsequious slave? And doing it for laughs (plus satire and condemnation), as he seemed to be in this bit?
I think he could have made the same point without acting out an ugly stereotype for laughs.
I’m not. Different power dynamics mean different “rules”, IMO.
This isn’t a huge deal. I’m just expressing my opinion – that repeating racist stereotypes for laughs is inappropriate, even if it’s ultimately done for satirical purposes. I still love Colbert – just a miscalculation. Nobody’s perfect.
Do you think the makers of “Mad Men” were being racist when they included a portrayal of Roger Sterling performing in blackface? I don’t. That’s what I think Colbert did. Only with satire and political commentary and irony in the mix.
I don’t agree that the laughs were for the stereotype. Again, contrast the Rosie O’Donnell invisent, which did play the stereotype for laughs.
Bottom line: white liberals don’t get to decide what’s offensive to blacks and Asians. When a Colbert or a Mayer crosses the line, he doesn’t get to claim “It’s okay because I’m on the side of the angels, so pipe down you oversensitive minorities who aren’t smart enough to grasp my sophisticated humor.”
As I have said above, I don’t agree that the Maher and Colbert situations are equivalent. Otherwise you’d think that Randy Newman really does believe that short people have no reason to live.
I don’t think Mad Men did it for laughs – rather they did it to show that he was kind of an asshole, and that the times were still pretty damn shitty in many ways in terms of societal racism.
That ching chong shtick went on for a full minute or more, IIRC, and got several clear laughs from the audience. It was satire too, but I think that ugly stereotype performance was also meant to get laughs. I think he did it like that on purpose – he was satirizing performers doing something offensive and then trying to excuse it by saying “that’s just a character”. But by doing that character for so long and (what seemed to me) clearly going for big, broad, lowbrow laughs with it, I think he was too clever by half, and it was problematic.
Still not a huge deal. It’s okay to criticize liberal comics that we like. They can make mistakes too, and I think Colbert and his team made one here.
Yes, it was all that but it was also funny. And John Slattery played it as a comic scene, like almost all his scenes as Roger Sterling. It was shocking, yes, and it was an illustration of casual racism in society, yes, but it was also funny. Because it was Roger making an ass of himself. It wasn’t a solemn and foreboding dramatic scene.
From my memory, I didn’t laugh when I saw it (several years ago). I don’t think it was done for laughs the same way Colbert’s thing was.
But we may just disagree on this. That’s okay.
By the same token, should white liberals really be deciding when something is offensive to blacks and minorities?
I’m having a bit of a logical hang-up here.
I think the problem is that a lot of people are confusing Stephen Colbert the Actor with Stephen Colbert, the Character. The scenario is, “said character is caught acting racist, so he makes a dumb excuse.” He was in character, he was not doing it as Colbert, the Actor.
(And again, it wasn’t that particular incident that sparked controversy, it was the tweet he made, mocking Dan Snyder.)
It’s like getting pissed because you watch a movie about WWII and then see the actors playing Nazis wearing swastikas and using words like “kike” and talking about gassing the Jews. They’re playing a character.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
The idea that the color of your skin dictates which words you can and cannot use is racist.
Firstly, you are quoting me saying something I didn’t say. My post included a quote by another poster saying that, which I think was clearly enough labeled so. Not any big deal in terms of misquoting, it’s just that I made clear in my original post I didn’t want to get into what is ‘racist’ or not, so by same token I’m not going to debate your first point about whether governmental race preferences are ‘racist’ either. I don’t agree with them, in general. They may not be ‘racist’, but IMO they are pretty clearly unconstitutional under the 14th amendment, and I believe the time during which the exigency of the circumstances dictating making believe they are constitutional has come to an end now. In general they have become counter productive, eg. where the daughters of POTUS get a race preference in college admissions (not to pick on them personally, they are fine young women AFAIK). But still that’s a problem IMO, and it’s not just a one off, there’s now too large a black elite, middle class, African immigrants whose ancestors didn’t encounter prejudice in the US, too many hardening pockets of white working class distress etc. Perhaps the exigency could still be argued for Natives, but you have to look at it overall: the legal justification is shaky, too many cross currents of injustice now in the policy itself.
But I really prefer to explain my opinion even perhaps at too much length, then resort to ‘racist’.
Likewise I didn’t say classing acceptable speech by a person’s color is ‘racist’. I simply think it’s a bad idea, at odds with any concept of judging people by the content of their character. Which is also a way in which the race preference analogy breaks down anyway. What you say is about you as an individual, or if not we’re really explicitly throwing away the concept of the individual, not just reacting to exigent circumstances with imperfect policies (which would be the reasonable defense of race preferences).
On your point 2, that’ just a throw away line. As usual nobody is talking about govt power suppressing people’s speech, and it’s OTOH IMO kind of too cute to talk about the social media virtual lynch mobs which go after people for saying various things now as just ‘well you give offense you pay the consequences’. It’s become a kind of mob tyranny in many cases, also just not a good thing IMO, again without necessarily being -ist/-phobe.
I get it, I just think Colbert was too clever by half – he was playing the Stephen Colbert character, and that character was doing a racist stereotype caricature for laughs, and the SC character than said that it was okay because he was doing a character. So the real SC was doing the SC character who was doing another character that was a racist caricature.
Not a huge deal, but I think it was problematic and he shouldn’t have done it.