littlek wrote:..........
You can have all the black people (or latino, asian, etc) on tv you want, but if they are not discussing the issues of being a person of color, they might as well be white (almost). So, one of the most productive shows for evoking discussion about race was All In The Family. Archie Bunker was a total bigotted ass, but by using that character, the show could get into topics on race relations. In the same way, I think humor can be used to evoke dialogue on the subject. Humor-in-bad-taste can be used as a tool to start the dialogue.
I reiterate this earlier post of mine. Look how much discussion Sacha Cohen has made happen!
Dave Chappelle's on the TV right now. He's racist, right?
So, he was talking (in the middle of his racist comedy act) about how early in the occupation of Iraq, Saddam Hussein's face was taken off the money (it's also a sneaky way to take money out of circulation and take control of an economy by controlling how much gets put back in, and maybe keeping some for yourself. But anyway...).
He's talking about what a subtle thing that is, to see a dictator on the money.
But if they can do that in Iraq, how come our money reads like baseball cards of great slaveowners, right there on the money you handle every day.
But he's just a racist clown, like the others. Nothing to do but bring his own race down. (Maybe he should just go away, right?)
Maybe Borat has some popularity because someone so patently artificial lends itself to projection.
You see the performer use the marionette to show up people, and the big question surrounding the performance is, "What is that guy trying to do?"
So we ask ourselves, "Why would I do that?" -- and the way we perceive the person behind the mask is based on the reasoning we can come up with for his actions.
Certainly I see someone behind the mask who sees the world they way I do.
He's also got a bit about how hard it would be to get aids from a monkey, so it ain't exactly erudite ****.
Thomas Jefferson: We hold these truths to be self-evident.
Thomas Jefferson: That all men are created equal.
Thomas Jefferson (aside): Now go make me a sandwich, nigger, or I'll kill you.
Damned racist comedians.
patiodog wrote:So an official in the Kazakh government has his knickers in a twist (or is speaking on behalf of an official with bunched undies). Here's a couple of tidbits on the workings of the Kazakh government (from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Kazakhstan).
Quote: Current President Nursultan Nazarbayev was elected to a 7 year term in a 2006 election that, many observers note, fell far short of international standards. [1] The legislature and judiciary, as well as regional and local governments are not independent from executive control, and changes or amendments to the Constitution require presidential consent. No opposition parties are represented in the Lower House of Parliament. Corruption remains systemic. While civilian authorities maintained effective control of the security forces, members of the security forces are reported to have committed human rights abuses.
Quote: In November 2005, a former minister in the Nazarbayev government, Zamanbek K. Nurkadilov, who had stated he planned to speak publicly about high-level corruption, was found shot dead according to accounts by police and an opposition leader, the New York Times reported. His death came three weeks prior to upcoming presidential elections. Nurkadilov had been fired from his position as minister of emergency situations in 2004, after saying that President Nazarbayev ought to answer allegations that Kazakh officials had accepted millions of US dollars in bribes from an intermediary for U.S. oil firms in the 1990's.
I'm not sure I'd consider opinions from this government as reflective of anything other than paranoia, especially when they come out with statements like this:
Quote: "We do not rule out that Mr. Cohen is serving someone's political order designed to present Kazakhstan and its people in a derogatory way," Kazakh Foreign Ministry spokesman Yerzhan Ashykbayev said Monday in a press conference.
As to direct complaints about materialÂ…
Quote: In January, Cohen's Borat drew the ire of several Jewish groups and Kazakhstan officials, after he led patrons of an Arizona bar in a song called "Throw the Jew Down the Well," which he declared was a popular ditty in his native land.
I've already mentioned this bit, which was disturbing - and I really do believe that this was the point - in that Cohen was able to get the patrons of this bar to happily clap, stomp, and sing along with "Throw the Jew down the well / So my country can be free / We must take him by his horns / And then we'll have a big party." Since you seem to want some equality in comedic attack, I'm not sure that you could come up with a more scathing bit about contemporary American white folks.
Which I take, given the venue and the attire, as a send of up Toby Keith and his like - country singers all-too-eager to invoke ethnic differences in calls to bomb the **** out of whatever brown people the American government is angry with at any given time.
Quote: In July, Cohen's Borat character visited the 150-year-old Mississippi plantation of George Matthews Marshall, claiming to be making a documentary about Southern hospitality. Marshall says he was outraged when a worker brought refreshments and Borat said, "Ah, I see you still have slaves here."
Yep, he did do this. At a table full of old white southerners being waited upon by a silent and deferential staff composed entirely of young black people
wearing white waistcoats and white gloves. More than a little reminiscent of slavery, even if the meal hadn't been served on an old plantation. But it was Cohen who was tasteless, not his hosts. Suuuuuuure.
I cant believe you took the time write such a 'robust' arguement....*cough*
It seems by your logic its ok to use racist denegration towards Kazak people because the governement is evil..........ok
so maybe it would be ok for people to think all Americans are half wit war mongers because of Bush......
And by your logic it is ok to be anti semitic because the Israeli government is a fascist state that is in breach of human rights and 70 Un Resolutions??
and what about the blacks that Ali G mocks...........his catch phrase is
'Is it because I is black'
Let me see black people deserve racism from Cohen ...........because........... of ....er.......Mugabe.......because he is black????
and what about the germans?? Cohen dengeration of germans is that ok because the nazis were Germans??
Ok I see your 'logic'
But there is a slight flaw in your BS.
The Kazak internet provider and the Kazak cinema owners, decided to pull the plug on Cohens racism.........ow and guess what???? They are not fro the government.
Cohen thinks its ok to racically denegrate Blacks, Arabs, and Germans.
I wonder why Cohen, who happens to be Israeli, decided to choose these races to denegrate??
Steve, you're just like the "victims" on the Ali G show. You simply don't get it...stop, you're just burying yourself.
Austrian, man, Austrian. And Kazakhs, as has been noted, are not Arabs. And I'm telling you, the Ali G character is supposed to be a white poseur -- otherwise, the "Is it because I'm black?" jokes don't work. (Because the character is not black, see?)
Have you seen the People vs. Larry Flynt? The wrangling with Jerry Falwell? (I'll use movie as history here, what the hell. The Supreme Court transcripts were used.)
Well, in case you haven't, Penthouse (Flynt's publication) printed a fake liquor ad featuring fake testimony from Jerry Falwell about how he'd had sex with his sister in the outhouse and the like. Falwell sued for libel or defamation of character or whatever the proper term is. On examining Falwell, Flynt's lawyer asked if anyone could possible believe that the statements about Falwell were true. "Certainly not," proclaimed Falwell. And so the statements could not be considered libelous/defamatory/whatever, because they absolutely were not credible.
I'd argue (and have been, for whatever reason) a similar tack with Cohen. A reasonable person (the fictive reasonable person is always the standard in legal cases) would realize that the characters were not only not realistic or representative in any way, but were not even intended to be realistic or representative.
Quote:It seems by your logic its ok to use racist denegration towards Kazak people because the governement is evil..........ok
No, I'm saying governments (and totalitarian governments in particular) tend not to have a well-developed sense of irony and to suffer from acute paranoia, and that the government's response probably shouldn't be taken as the people's response.
Quote:But there is a slight flaw in your BS.
The Kazak internet provider and the Kazak cinema owners, decided to pull the plug on Cohens racism.........ow and guess what???? They are not fro the government.
Right, because media outlets operate with complete freedom in Kazakhstan. Sure. Didja happen to read about the newspapers who were no longer able to print anything after the recent election there? (Kazakh, with an "h," by the way, at least in common usage.)
Now, I'm not denying that there would be Kazakhs who would be offended by the act. I'd be willing to bet there are also Kazakhs who would be amused by it.
Just for reference, what comedians
don't offend you?
stevewonder wrote:But there is a slight flaw in your BS.
The Kazak internet provider and the Kazak cinema owners, decided to pull the plug on Cohens racism.........ow and guess what???? They are not fro the government.
Cohen thinks its ok to racically denegrate Blacks, Arabs, and Germans.
You dont actually know anything
about Kazakhstan, do you?
Two of my good buddies are involved in this very question. Check out
http://www.theblackjewdialogues.com/
I saved it but haven't looked yet. Plan to.
But it sure seems apropo to the conversation.
I mention my old gallery once in a while now that I'm out of it, but that's near useless anyway since there isn't a website - but various people said it was the best gallery north of San Francisco. I spent years not mentioning the name here.
Sometimes I run across links on arts that involve people I know. I mention it, when true. I don't go searching for people I know and start threads on them. Oh, wait, I did once, sort of a far association. But even that was a reaction to a news bulletin in the first place. Not to mention there was nothing I can imagine people buying..
All very tricky, Noddy, re TOS. I don't see Nick as being off base here myself.
ONE PERSON'S RACIST,
IS ANOTHER PERSON'S FREEDOM FIGHTER
by H. Millard (c) 2001
European-Americans--white people--are used to being demonized these days as racists and bigots whenever they speak out truthfully about the increasing attacks on their people and their culture. Recently, we've seen those who sometimes secretly hate white people broaden their attacks to include immigration activists. One such immigration activist group called Numbers U.S.A. has come under fire for its rolling billboards giving Census Department statistics about immigration. No kidding. The group has been called racist for displaying numbers. Racist numbers? Yep. At least according to some of the crackpots who have been criticizing the outfit. The whole thing would be laughable except for the fact that these crackpots who so readily fling hate terms at others, are actually considered, by some, to be serious and responsible people in our society instead of the nut cases that they so often are.
There is something in human psychology that causes far too many people to simply believe the name callers instead of using critical thinking skills to intelligently think through an issue. Maybe it's a little like the psychology at work where a person who criticizes food in a restaurant is often thought to be more intelligent than the people who don't criticize the food. At any rate, when a person calls another person or group, "racist," the focus of most eyes and ears seems to go to the person or group that has been called the name instead of to the person who does the name calling, which is where the focus should often be.
I was reminded of the way this evil name calling game (and more) goes, by "Shaman and Freedom-Fighter Led Indians' Mission Revolt," a column by Cecilia Rasmussen that appeared in the Los Angeles Times on June 10. Given the fact that this column, as already mentioned, appeared in the Times, with its fairly well known "anything and anyone but white people" bias, I wasn't surprised to read that a racist Indian named Toypurina is gushed over as a freedom fighter.
If you have access to the Times, please read the column for yourself, but for those who may be reading this without such access, the story of Toypurina, in its simplest terms, is about this Gabrielino Indian woman who helped lead a revolt against the San Gabriel Mission in the California of the late 1700's. In the column, we read that after the failed revolt and her capture, Toypurina told the judges hearing her case that: "I hate the padres and all of you [white people], for living here on my native soil, for trespassing upon the land of my forefathers and despoiling our tribal domains...." She also called the judges and other white people, "white invaders."
Turn the words and situation around a little bit and you'll see the Times' bias. Suppose Toypurina were a white woman who recently led a revolt against the present Third World invaders of California--the illegal aliens--mostly from Mexico. Suppose she had said "I hate all of you (brown people), for coming here to my native soil, for trespassing upon the land of my forefathers and despoiling our culture." Suppose further that she had called brown people, "brown invaders." What do you suppose the tone of the Times' column would be if all these suppositions were reality? Let me answer it for you. It is doubtful that the Times would be running a PR puff piece calling the white woman a freedom fighter. Instead, we'd probably be treated to a piece about racism, white supremacy, intolerance, bigotry, (ho, hum). You know it, and I know it.
But, the Times would probably go even further. After writing about the hate and bigotry of the white Toypurina, we'd be treated to a whole series of columns as the different editors and writers at the Times each wrote about a piece of the story from their perspectives. Thus, we might see the food section baking up some "Tolerance Cookies." We might see the editorial writers telling readers that "we're all people, and we all bleed red blood." We might see the science writers telling us that people are almost all the same genetically.
And so it goes, dear friends, when the media sets out to brainwash a population into oblivion. And, many people believe that's what's happening in California and the rest of this nation right now. European-Americans are being driven out of this country. But, you may be saying, "Oh, come on Millard, that's too alarmist, European-Americans aren't being driven out. There's no massive wave of European-Americans heading back to Europe."
Ahh, but if you think this, then you're wrong. European-Americans are being driven out through assimilation and attrition. The European-American birth rate isn't very high, and there is little incentive to birth more European-American babies to help on the family farm or to help support the family, as once was the case. Now, instead of an incentive to supply needed workers through the internal growth of this nation by births of European-Americans, the needed workers are being imported to the country. So, why have babies? "Hey, there are too many people on the planet, and it would interfere with my life style," seems to be the cry from many European-Americans. So, many European-Americans don't have children or have below replacement levels of children.
Meanwhile, massive waves of illegal aliens are pouring across our borders to fill the need for entry level workers that aren't being filled by the internal births. And, when the childless European-Americans die, their niche often isn't filled by other European-Americans, but by the children of the illegal aliens. And, as this continues, the complexion of America is changing. Even now there are far fewer whites in proportion to the population than ever before. And, that, dear friends, is an indication that whites are being driven out and replaced. However, if you say this, or talk about the genocide of white people through assimilation and other factors, don't expect the Times to call you a "freedom fighter." That term is reserved for those who hate white people.
# # #
Genocide of white people?
Jesus Christ.
Steve:
I have read all the posts to this thread. I think I hear you saying two things: (1) you object to prejudice and bigotry, and (2) you believe (IMO) that what the Ali G characters do comes from real prejudice and bigotry.
I, like many others here, simply do not agree with this belief. In fact, as others have tried to point out to you, the humor of Ali G is intended to underscore the prejudices and ignorance of the people he encounters. It is THEIR reaction to his set-ups that is laughable, though also a bit disheartening, at least on some level.
Having said that, I do think that some people, people who harbor REAL prejudice, bigotry and hatred, often hide behind "objection to political correctness", and claim to only be "joking" when in fact, their comments are absolutely based in real bigotry. But as someone else said above, it is usually very easy to recognize this.
It is often difficult, however, to know exactly when the line between acceptable and unacceptable humor has been crossed. Making fun of "fat people", for example, may feel ok to some, but making fun of overweight children is probably not.
I guess, for me, if the "humor" is based in real prejudice, it's not humor. And if it, intentionally or unintentionally, hurts a particularly innocent or vulnerable group, that probably wouldn't work for me either.
I don't think the Ali G characters do either.
This is a long thread already, so I apologize if any of this has already been said...
Very often, comedy is based on naughtiness. You laugh because they are not supposed to say that. The balance between how safe and how naughty you are determines your audience.
Going too far will limit your appeal dramatically, playing it too safe will see you losing audience to the guy who is naughtier than you.
When it comes to racism, it's about bullying. If the humor appears to be at the expense of a minority over which you a higher perceived social status...you're going to offend. For example, in Australia, an aborigine making jokes about white people won't offend many, while the reverse will offend most people.
Think school yard.... when everybody points and laughs at the small nerdy kid falling over, it seems cruel. When the big sporty popular guy falls over, it's hysterical.
One more point....you get away with more cruelty, racism, parody and naughtiness if you're really funny, than if you're not. It's very hard to be outraged and amused simultaneously. What right do you have to complain if you actually laughed at the joke?
angie wrote:Steve:
I have read all the posts to this thread. I think I hear you saying two things: (1) you object to prejudice and bigotry, and (2) you believe (IMO) that what the Ali G characters do comes from real prejudice and bigotry.
I, like many others here, simply do not agree with this belief. In fact, as others have tried to point out to you, the humor of Ali G is intended to underscore the prejudices and ignorance of the people he encounters. It is THEIR reaction to his set-ups that is laughable, though also a bit disheartening, at least on some level.
Having said that, I do think that some people, people who harbor REAL prejudice, bigotry and hatred, often hide behind "objection to political correctness", and claim to only be "joking" when in fact, their comments are absolutely based in real bigotry. But as someone else said above, it is usually very easy to recognize this.
It is often difficult, however, to know exactly when the line between acceptable and unacceptable humor has been crossed. Making fun of "fat people", for example, may feel ok to some, but making fun of overweight children is probably not.
I guess, for me, if the "humor" is based in real prejudice, it's not humor. And if it, intentionally or unintentionally, hurts a particularly innocent or vulnerable group, that probably wouldn't work for me either.
I don't think the Ali G characters do either.
Angie, thanks for an intelligent well thought out post.
I agree with most of what you have wrote, except you conclude Cohen is not hiding his bigotry, I disagree I think he is and his 'comedy' which focus on other racial group other than his own shows his own underlying racism.
The Ali G character is passed off as a white trying to be black, but the entire is about black urban culture as perceived by white peoples stereo types............
Bruno is passed off as an Austrian but in fact he is portrayed as having affiliations to nazism.
People need to scratch the surface of Cohens tactis he is actually trying to denegrate other races, and people who do that have usually have superiorty complex about them.
Cohen is a racist and it amazes me that in the modern world someone can be still accepted and tolerated with such racism.
For those who argue that it is not racism then there is a simple way to evaluate that, if a black, white or chinese comedy created a Jewish character would it be Anti-semitic??
and there you have it. :wink:
Madison32 wrote:ONE PERSON'S RACIST,
IS ANOTHER PERSON'S FREEDOM FIGHTER
by H. Millard (c) 2001
European-Americans--white people--are used to being demonized these days as racists and bigots whenever they speak out truthfully about the increasing attacks on their people and their culture. Recently, we've seen those who sometimes ...........................roportion to the population than ever before. And, that, dear friends, is an indication that whites are being driven out and replaced. However, if you say this, or talk about the genocide of white people through assimilation and other factors, don't expect the Times to call you a "freedom fighter." That term is reserved for those who hate white people.
# # #
thats the biggest pile of horse sh*t i have seen in a long time.
stevewonder wrote:Bruno is passed off as an Austrian but in fact he is portrayed as having affiliations to nazism.
What the hell are you talking about? Point out one skit where Bruno, the gay fashion guy, affiliates himself to nazism.
You're not doing much to back up your claims.
