This cartoon made the Reddit front page. It reminded me of a joke that I found funny when I was eleven, but that I find vaguely unsettling now:
I kind of figure the standard answer should apply—if I have to ask, the answer is yes. My question is: why? Can anyone articulate what it is that is/would be offensive? Go ahead and dissect the frog if need be.
Anything that evokes “negro/slave dialect” (ie - “Massa”) or watermelons/fried chicken is automatically racist, unless the joketellers themselves are black, and even then, sometimes it’s still racist.
Makes sense. I never made the connection or focused on the caricature of the language, but that’s pretty close to the source of my discomfiture–evoking the master/slave relationship as well. There’s another, similar joke that I can’t remmber the punch line to (but it had something to do with The Shadow).
I’m curious about about this as well. To my ears, that joke is based on not prejudice, but the synthesis of two facts, so it should be acceptable. (Fact #1: Until sometime around ~1864 (bad with dates and too lazy to google), Black people were victims of slavery in the US. Fact #2: They didn’t like it.)
IMHO, I think we’ve became oversensitive to the point where saying “Black people are Black” is an offensive and racist statement, and we need to cut it out already.
As a sidenote, I feel guilty saying “Black” instead of “African-American”. I feel like someone’s drunk great-grandma talking about colored people. (Why do I use it anyways? Because I’ve lived in Canada long enough to know that “African-Canadian” isn’t a valid construction, but not long enough to spell ‘colored’ with a ‘u’.)
“Black” is not a race. Though they can’t seem to make up their minds on what black actually is. Negro should be the formal title, much like Caucasian is for ‘white’.
There is no African-American. Primarily because most black people are American, and Africa is a world away.
Black people chose/choose to say “Massa” either because they couldn’t talk properly, or it was intentional.
In all races and all nations you will find modified words like “Massa.” Any joke then with similar subject content would be either racist or xenophobic.
Equality at it’s finest - it’s either all racist or none at all.
Wow there’s a lot going on here, so little of it reasonable.
In order:
[list=#]
[li]“Race” as we’re using it here is meaningless unless and until a specific confluence of cultural factors give it meaning. There’s no inherent biological basis, as proven by the historic “one-drop rule” for determining whether someone is Black.[/li][li]Due to the above, race is inherently fluid and will inevitably change with both time and location. For example, some races have “died out” entirely: When was the last time a significant number of Americans were described as Mulatto? Or Octaroons? Yet both were, in some places and times, very important racial classifications.[/li][li]Saying that one word should be the ‘correct’ or ‘formal’ name is, therefore, historically and culturally illiterate. As perceptions and self-definitions change, words change to match. Words are how we reify abstract thoughts; they’re the handles we stick into amorphous confluences of experience and opinion. As those confluences change, so will the handles we use for them.[/li][/list]
‘As we’re using it here,’ is this like when we use ‘jew’ to mean race, religion and culture whenever it suits the mood or need?
By your own definition, “race” then has only one use.
Obviously, which is exactly why specifying ‘African-American’ is futile (or any other variation).
See above. And none of that changes the reality of the situation.
I prefer to say black. If I’m being formal, I’ll say black Americans. That makes more sense to me than African American. I think either way is perfectly acceptable.
Saraya, race may not exist on a biological basis but it certainly exists as a social construct. If we were to make no distinction we would be operating under the assumption that the social construct does not matter, and of course it does.
I would agree, but then it is interesting we call Asian people “Chinese” or “Asian.” If we call people with African ethnicity “black,” shouldn’t we call Asian people “yellow”?
Just for the record, there have been fourteen different black astronauts who have gone up in space, and five more who qualified but have not. There should be so many unicorns.
And I find the joke quoted in the OP to be pretty racist. It not only invokes a whole image considered racist, it dredges up a form of address tied to the old days of slavery and the later “nadir of race relations”. At best, it’s insensitive, and IMHO, it ain’t funny.
Combine “oversensitive” with a little honest “guilt”. Throw in a heaping helping of cries of racism as an excellent tactic. Result… it ain’t going away any time soon.
First, the joke’s not very funny. I can see it getting groans even in an all Black nightclub delivered by a Black comedian.
Intent matters. It’s not so much racist as it is in bad taste. So I can see Arsenio Hall getting away with this one, but if Ann Coulter were to drop it in her repertoire, I think we might ascertain where it’s going. Bottom line, it deals with taboo issues in American society and the penchant is to be uncomfortable with it. If Richard Pryor or Chris Rock were delivering the joke, it seems to be more likely couched in a larger point about race relations, so it might be less problematic.
As an Official Black Person, I’d like to remind everyone that it’s acceptable to say “Black” or “African American” (though the latter requires you to know something about the people you’re referring to - i.e. their citizenry). No scary Black people will beat you up if you say either one, though you might be corrected, and if so, so what?
I agree. It’s not saying anything negative about blacks, nor is it reinforcing any stereotype.
The only way I can see someone stretching to find racism would be that it implies that blacks are overly sensitive to anything that sounds like it is related to slavery. But IMHO, the stretch to that meaning is much too big to warrant a judgment of racism.
Things that refer to race are racial. Things that refer to racism are also racial. Referring to racism is not itself racist. Statements cannot be racist independent of the statement maker. The litmus test for racist content is the intention and meaning of the statement maker. Sometimes it can be inferred by context. It’s not racist, but it is often insensitive, to make statements whose intention and meaning are not clearly understood within their given context.
What I have realized in English forums, rarely in this forum, is that making insulting comments on Middle Eastern people is okay but you cannot make this on Jews and Blacks. Is this fair?
I think it’s an “n-word privileges” kind of thing. An alright joke if you’re referencing your own culture’s history, but an uncomfortable one if you’re from outside that culture.