What is racist, and what's parodic racism.

[Waus]

This kind of came up in a Sureshots thread recently - but I was wondering about this. What is real racism now, and what's parodies of cliched racist sentiment meant for humor?

Does anyone honestly make cracks about watermelon or fried chicken still?

Do people still start e-fights when Cartman talks about Kyle's "jew gold"?

Is 'jigaboo' really even a part of the national racist lexicon anymore?

I don't know. I'm just saying that maybe all these things are just silliness, and the real racist issues involve a lot more contemporary themes and deep-rooted divides.

[Schmeltz]

The thing is that there never has been nor will there ever be an absolute definition of what constitutes racist behaviour or attitudes. All there is, in real terms, is constantly fluctuating concepts of where to draw the line in terms of social taboos. I saw Teh's posts in that thread too, and while I recognized their imagery as undeniably prejudiced I couldn't help but feel that the images were rendered in a sort of tongue-in-cheek vogue - I mean who seriously still thinks black people are addicted to watermelon, for fuck's sakes?

And yet on the other hand we have actual violence, and a sort of associated mini-civil rights debate, occurring in Jena LA over the use of another equally antiquated but still obviously potent symbol of regressive and ignorant social prejudices. So it seems to me that there is quite clearly still plenty of room for discourse over what constitutes a socially unacceptable use of various connotative imagery.

In other words, it's a little bit of both. There's an element of ironic silliness to this sort of thing for sure, especially at this point in our cultural evolution - but at the same time these issues continue to indicate fundamental inadequacies in the interaction between extremely large, varied, and diverse groups of people. If you're looking for some kind of terminus to this debate, then good luck because you'll never find it - every generation, and indeed every individual, will always define racism and racist behaviour in different and very wide-ranging terms.

[King PSYZ]

I don't buy this whole "it's parody" garbage. The social internet (4Chan, YTMND, ect.) in general is pretty hateful and racist. They're mostly angsty white teenage males who have nothing better than to perpetuate their parents and to some degree own stereotypes and hate.

They seem to think because it's an internet and they have a pithy user name that it's all annoymous, and therefore OK. It's like they have no internal filter. Would they be doing this "parody" in front of someone in real life? Hell no.

It's the kind of bullshit that has spawned a generation of people who seem to think this shit is hillarious and to the usually intelligent people so grossly and overtly offensive that it HAS TO BE parody. Which gave rise to hacks like "Carlos Mencia". I use quotations because this is more of a stage name and although the claims he's a "beaner", he's actually a German-Honduran. Funny how many Nazis escaped to South America, and how coincidental that "Carlos" comes from a union that seems made under such conditions... Hmmm.

Now there is some parodic racist humor out there. But it takes a lot of talent to make us laugh at perceptions of difference rather than laughing at stereotypes. While some of Dave Chapelle's humor is and was offensive, alot of his humor was actually very smart. He was showing us to laugh at how silly many stereotypes are, not reinforcing them like "Mencia" does.

Yes there are some cultural differences around the world, but anyone who posts something like for instance the shit teh was posting, should be able to gather that it's more than likely offensive to many and outright racist to most. Moreso when one is called on it, to continue to post this garbage is insane.

[mikizee]

I think offensive to many and racist to most is a bit rich. The images while maybe not that funny were clearly tongue in cheek.

I wasn't offended in the slightest.

In fact really the only person who got offended was yourself. And maybe hpdrifter had something to say about it. Everybody else really didn't give a shit.

I think that this being a free and open thing, this internet, means that if you get offended by something in particular, well, thats your problem. By all means voice your opinion, but don't expect it to go any further. I think the whole world needs to harden the fuck up, and stop whinging about every little thing that rubs them the wrong way.

Racism is still rampant all around the world, lets focus on the real issues instead of crying about some unfunny images. I really don't think they make things worse.

Carlos Mencia does far more to reinforce negative stereotypes than anything I've seen posted in the genius thread.

[Auton]

posting one LOL THIS IS RACIST gif or picture would have been one thing, but it stopped being funny when the person kept posting more and more racial things all in a row. I happen to agree that it's a bit too much. a little shock humor can be funny, but 1) it's lazy humor for the most part, and least in the case of the stuff you see on the internet, and 2) i know the kids who made those would be scared shitless and wouldn't joke around like that to a person of that particular race. to me the whole shock-humor thing with these kids on the internet is just kind of dumb- shock usually ends up as a replacement when people don't have actual wit. these jokes have been used over and over and over again, aren't even funny in an ironic sort of way, and are only created by people who are safe behind the computer screen in their bedroom.

[Auton]

and for the record it wasn't even psyz who brought it up initially, it was knucks. a bunch of people noticed, they just didn't start shit.

[Bob]

and for the record it wasn't even psyz who brought it up initially, it was knucks. a bunch of people noticed, they just didn't start shit.

i don't think it was

[King PSYZ]

I wasn't offended in the slightest.

In fact really the only person who got offended was yourself. And maybe hpdrifter had something to say about it. Everybody else really didn't give a shit.

I love this current trend of slamming me for being "sensitive" because I'm not afraid to call bullshit what it is.

[Lyman Zerga]

this thread needs black people, who cares what you white trashed people have to say!

[JohnnyChavello]

Whether it's parody or satire, or both, depends on the presence of some commentary. Parody redefines the meaning of a symbol through the use of the symbol's terms; satire redefines concepts through the use of symbols generally associated with the concept (these definitions are somewhat simplistic, but accurate to an extent).

Of course, if we're thinking in a post-structuralist sense, context is always a component of meaning. So, for example, when Andy Warhol creates Brillo boxes, although he simply duplicates the boxes as they exist in their commercial sense, the ones he creates have parodic and satirical aspects because of the context in which he created them.

The problem I have with someone simply posting a clearly racist image to a bulletin board (and trust me, nobody's crying over it), is that it's hard for me, or anyone else, to interpret it as anything other than "look: isn't this racist image funny?" I don't know the person who posted it, I don't know what the person's views regarding the concept of racism are, and I don't approach his posts with any history or context. How am I supposed to conclude that it's tongue-in-cheek?

Hardly anyone thinks of themself as a racist, including racists, but to my mind, "look: isn't racism funny," doesn't distinguish itself as something other than racist. This isn't a comment on the person who posted the pictures: I don't know him/her, but being amused by images of black people eating watermelons, or being referred to as "jigaboos," really only lends itself to one interpretation.

[Auton]

this thread needs black people, who cares what you white trashed people have to say!

do we really need a black person to come in here to say whether this is racist or not?

[Knuckles]

Whether it's parody or satire, or both, depends on the presence of some commentary. Parody redefines the meaning of a symbol through the use of the symbol's terms; satire redefines concepts through the use of symbols generally associated with the concept (these definitions are somewhat simplistic, but accurate to an extent).

Of course, if we're thinking in a post-structuralist sense, context is always a component of meaning. So, for example, when Andy Warhol creates Brillo boxes, although he simply duplicates the boxes as they exist in their commercial sense, the ones he creates have parodic and satirical aspects because of the context in which he created them.

The problem I have with someone simply posting a clearly racist image to a bulletin board (and trust me, nobody's crying over it), is that it's hard for me, or anyone else, to interpret it as anything other than "look: isn't this racist image funny?" I don't know the person who posted it, I don't know what the person's views regarding the concept of racism are, and I don't approach his posts with any history or context. How am I supposed to conclude that it's tongue-in-cheek?

Hardly anyone thinks of themself as a racist, including racists, but to my mind, "look: isn't racism funny," doesn't distinguish itself as something other than racist. This isn't a comment on the person who posted the pictures: I don't know him/her, but being amused by images of black people eating watermelons, or being referred to as "jigaboos," really only lends itself to one interpretation.

Yep.

I dig your posts Johnny. (y)

You are a real asset to this board.

[Waus]

[some pretty insightful stuff] also context

JohnnyC - good post. One thing I thought I'd mention though, the place where I saw a lot of these 'racist' images originate are on boards where people post as "anonymous" and nothing else. The whole community is essentially anonymous. The real thing is that anything goes - the worst comes out because anyone can say anything behind their monitor (vlog lolz (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qs2YfkzDAss) - "what's this"). That totally eliminates the aspect of context concerning the submitter...but does that make everything more shocking - or does it make everything less shocking considering the absolutely piss-low bar being set for content?

[Schmeltz]

Man there's some killer posts up in here.


but does that make everything more shocking - or does it make everything less shocking considering the absolutely piss-low bar being set for content?


That's an excellent question and the issue of anonymity in the media context is a really pertinent aspect of this discussion. I would say that there's something of a social contract that applies to media contexts (like internet message boards) that are defined by anonymous participation because anonymity is a singular social safety valve - people feel more comfortable indulging in the more crass and immature aspects of their personalities in this social setting; they are able to express opinions and ideas that rarely surface in the other social settings in which they find themselves. And, knowing this, you have to expect that when you participate in such a forum - and especially when the other participants are representatives of extremely widely variable cultural backgrounds and personal tastes - you are probably going to be exposed to material that you might consider offensive.

In other words, while there might be guidelines to which people are expected to adhere, they're always going to be contested and redefined. As time goes on there will inevitably be more people who post content or express ideas that push the boundaries of taste and this will prompt more discussion about the limits of good taste. But in a context like this which essentially functions as both a free marketplace of ideas and a type of individual social release mechanism, you can't expect to have a right not to be offended.

Frankly I'm surprised that this is the worst kind of material ever posted on this board. I've seen way, way worse things elsewhere, and they didn't engender nearly this type of discussion in response. But then again, considering the medium of interaction this is a quite uniquely insular community whose members have grown familiar with each other over many years, and perhaps that makes the discovery or illumination of certain aspects of certain personalities especially socially significant.

[Lyman Zerga]

do we really need a black person to come in here to say whether this is racist or not?

no but i wonder if black people get hurt/offened by it or if it's just us who make a big deal out of nothing once again!

[Lyman Zerga]

Frankly I'm surprised that this is the worst kind of material ever posted on this board. I've seen way, way worse things elsewhere, and they didn't engender nearly this type of discussion in response.

yeah wtf?

[mikizee]

Man there's some killer posts up in here.



That's an excellent question and the issue of anonymity in the media context is a really pertinent aspect of this discussion. I would say that there's something of a social contract that applies to media contexts (like internet message boards) that are defined by anonymous participation because anonymity is a singular social safety valve - people feel more comfortable indulging in the more crass and immature aspects of their personalities in this social setting; they are able to express opinions and ideas that rarely surface in the other social settings in which they find themselves. And, knowing this, you have to expect that when you participate in such a forum - and especially when the other participants are representatives of extremely widely variable cultural backgrounds and personal tastes - you are probably going to be exposed to material that you might consider offensive.

In other words, while there might be guidelines to which people are expected to adhere, they're always going to be contested and redefined. As time goes on there will inevitably be more people who post content or express ideas that push the boundaries of taste and this will prompt more discussion about the limits of good taste. But in a context like this which essentially functions as both a free marketplace of ideas and a type of individual social release mechanism, you can't expect to have a right not to be offended.

Frankly I'm surprised that this is the worst kind of material ever posted on this board. I've seen way, way worse things elsewhere, and they didn't engender nearly this type of discussion in response. But then again, considering the medium of interaction this is a quite uniquely insular community whose members have grown familiar with each other over many years, and perhaps that makes the discovery or illumination of certain aspects of certain personalities especially socially significant.

You brain work good yes

[yeahwho]

Haters love anonymity. To bring this topic up and shine a light on it is great. Racism seems to be a self-perpetuating easy way out. What has been ingrained by generations of thought will not be easily unlearned.

I'm not too offended by parodied racism, especially if it is done by the likes of Dave Chappelle, it is in it's own way breaking down the insanity of how we've perceived and continue to perceive each other. At least we're laughing and thinking.

The difference between racist and parodied racist humor is when it becomes more of a defense mechanism such as the Michael Richards (Kramer) incident at Laugh Factory in L.A. last year.

[Lyman Zerga]

I'm not too offended by parodied racism, especially if it is done by the likes of Dave Chappelle, it is in it's own way breaking down the insanity of how we've perceived and continue to perceive each other. At least we're laughing and thinking.


ja (y)

[g-mile7]

Autons and co. is spot on.Theres a point where U have 2 excerise moderation."Black people do it" is weak,just cuz black people do it doesnt mean its right or u can.Chapelle canceled his show cuz he felt he went 2 far.Also Chapelle made fun of all races,just black jokes R focused on,espically by white kids,the most.Always easier 2 make such statements online or with similar thinking peers since theres no reprecusions;even if there is you just come back under an alias.This topics too deep 4 this board.

[yeahwho]

This topics too deep 4 this board.

At first I was offended by your statement....then after reading some of the other posts on this site, I have to agree. This is afterall the BBMB, where the banner reads,

All of the Beastie Boys and BeastieBoys.com forums under one grand unifying banner, giving the people what they want, Guaranteed Every Time.