It’s one of those jokes that are not intrinsically racist but in some contexts will have extremely racist overtones. So when Arsenio tells it, it’s funny because he’s riffing on an old stereotype that is no longer true if it ever was. When [racist white guy] tells it, even with the exact same wording, it’s much nastier because the intent behind it is blatantly different.
Here’s another one to discuss:
Q: Why don’t black people go on cruises?
A: They’re not falling for that one again.
Do you mean “is this a fair summary”? If so, of course it isn’t. It’ not okay to make insulting comments on Middle Eastern people, whether or not they’re Jewish or black.
I agree. And I agree with our “Official Black Person” that it’s just not very funny. Not even a little bit. It’s actually pretty stupid.
But we do need to lighten up. No one said they need to pack watermelon and fried chicken for the black astronauts.
Okay, now that’s funny.
If black people should be Negroes, then whiteys should be Blancos, shouldn’t we?
Or Blancoes, I guess…
It’s racist in any context because it aligns a certain dialect with a specific race.
Race and dialect are not related. The joke implies all black people speak a certain way. This is no different than implying all black people are thieves, stupid, or lazy.
Really? This too requires discussion?
Implying that a native African who was kidnapped to be sold into slavery was too stupid to realize that they weren’t voluntarily going on a pleasure cruise… how is that in any way NOT racist?
I mean, people make insulting comments on Middle Eastern people, on some forums. No one cares.
But, when someone makes insulting comments on Jews or Blacks, everyone counter-attacks him.
It depends entirely on whether you think the joke is about how dumb black people are or about the sheer surreality of the idea of slave ships being touted as cruise liners. I prefer the second interpretation, personally.
Anyone or anything that makes reference to skin color in any manner other than as a physical description of someone is by definition racist.
Whether something is racist is clearly an opinion. Flatly stating that something is or is not racist as if there is a way to objectively decide it very silly. You know, like something a dirty Jew might do.
I moved to the Caribbean and was repeatedly corrected on this point. Didn’t get beaten up, but my friends and colleagues from Barbados, Cayman , Jamaica, St Lucia, and Nigeria would look at me very oddly when I used the term African American.
My Nigerian fiend, a small meek woman, would get almost livid declaring “I am the only African in this office!” The Caribbean colleagues were more exasperated by it saying that I needed to understand that they were neither African not American so would I kindly stop using that term. Didn’t help that our jobs (9-1-1 operators) regularly require asking for physical descriptions of persons including skin colour.
Meanwhile, something like 90%* of blacks in the USA don’t care either way. Hell, I’ll even accept Negro or colored if the speaker is old and not being disrespectful.
*not a real statistic
Yeah, but it was a different time then, you understand. 1957, '58.
Fiend 
I’m not black, but this sums up my opinion.
I found the second joke funnier.
Me too. Or, poking fun at white folks for being stupid enough to think that the first option was a possibility. I’m a sucker for humor that pokes fun at stereotypes, but by poking at the believers of the stereotypes rather than the stereotypes themselves.
That might be a bit too broad a brush, but it sure is a good starting point or rule of thumb. I confess I can’t think of an example showing that it’s too broad.
I bet you’re a big hit at parties.
You’re making the assumption that racist means bad, which is something you can’t do with such a broad definition as the one proposed by Clothahump. Sure, it makes the definition objective, but then it loses its ability to indicate a moral value. Because, like it or not, we do not view all technical racism as equally bad.
For example, the first joke is horribly unfunny, so it is perceived as more “racist” in the common sense than the second joke. Both are technically racist, but the humor of the second one overshadows that. Except amongst those of you who don’t find it funny, who are complaining about it being racist.
If you’re going to make a joke that is in bad taste, it must be funny, or otherwise people will be offended.
The name makes me assume the poster is (Asian) Indian (culturally if not geographically), and thus would be largely ignorant of the actual complexities of race relations in the U.S., wanting an overly simple answer in what is or is not offensive.
I don’t think it’s the usual indicator of racism that it can be in the U.S., where people are just using the illogic of the situation (caused by the deferring definitions mentioned in my previous post) to come up with an excuse to be able to make racist comments without repudiation.
Oh, sure, if you mean there are forums that are obnoxiously anti-Middle-Eastern, of course there are. And I’m sure you could find another forum where antisemitic comments were tolerated but not anti-middle-Eastern comments (I suppose, although given Israel’s geographic location that’d be pretty weird), and other forums where anti-black comments and anti-middle-Eastern comments were tolerated but not antisemitic ones. All it means is you’ve found a particular variety of obnoxious forum.