Comedy at its Worst

I chose to study Political Humour and Social Transformation because I truly believe that it can be a space for marginalized people to speak out and that Humour can be an instrument of change. However, like every profession, the comedy industry is not immune to society’s inequities and comedians often have to buy into prejudices or stereotypes about certain groups of people to be successful. An Argentine cartoonist, Daniel Paz told me that in order for a joke to be funny, it must be based on a common social norm or assumption that everybody shares. So if you want to make a joke about your mother-in-law, you have to use all the stereotypes and associations that the public has about the mother-in-law in order for the joke to be funny. Basically, a joke requires that you use notions about gender, race and sexuality so that people can laugh. He told me that a joke is always a result of a cultural, social, and political context as well as the ideological norms of any given society; And the comedian must know this to make people laugh. Comedians themselves are not immune to having racist, sexist or homophobic views of different groups of people. So when Mr Paz told me this, I knew he was right but when I saw Micheal Richards' (Kramer from Seinfeld) racist outburst at a gig at a local comedy club, I thought, geez, did he really have to be that right about it?
Find video below:




Now the question is not whether or not his outburst was racist, I mean that goes without saying right? Like duh! But what is important to consider is that he felt that he could say it. That outburst probably would not have happened had he been performing in front of an all black audience or if the owners of the club were black. Kramer felt that the comedy club as a public space was a white space that belonged to him and other white people. So the intimidation and attack on the black man is not just a personal feud between two individuals at the comedy club, it is the establishment of his authority and control over a public space that must only be accessible to whites. The ‘interruption’ of the black man at the comedy club is more than a distraction in a comedy routine; The black man’s mere presence is an intrusion upon a white hegemonic public space and a public threat to Kramer’s white authority over that space.
Perhaps the most obvious display of white solidarity and privilege is the fact that the owners of the club allowed him to perform the very next day and have not released the official copy of the video showing his entire performance. Had a member of the audience not videotaped and leaked it out, we probably would not have known about it. The comedy club’s position or their failure to publicly take a position on the issue is important because Kramer as a performer is also representing them. A comedy club is a business which has policies about what can and cannot be said at their show so not taking a stance or remaining silent is to endorse his racist behaviour.
However, let us not forget that there were white people who walked out at the performance and who were also disgusted by his behaviour. So it is not that all white people sat there in support or his racism, there were those who allied themselves with the people of colour in that moment.
Lets take a look at his apology:


There are several problems with the ‘apology’: 1. He has not come out to the media himself and apologized. Why is Seinfeld giving him the opportunity to do so? Is it not Michael Richard who should have come forward and done it himself? 2. The terminology of the apology: Who are Afro-Americans? At any rate, African-Americans are not a ‘community’ they are individuals and ought not to be clumped into one group. Also, given that they are citizens like everybody else, he as a public figure with fans etc, owes the Black man and the public an apology for his actions. 3. The ‘I’m Not even a Racist remark.’... I won’t elaborate on this, I think you all get it.
Additionally, given the laughter from the audience and then the thunderous applause after his apology, it is safe to say that his apology is not being taken seriously and has prompted no real discussion about his racism.

But what about what the African Americans had to say:

African American response:


What I think is of most importance, is that a white woman is defending the African Americans in this scenario. This is important because white women have a long history of functioning as/positioning themselves and being positioned by white men as mediators between people of colour and white people. So if you watch a movie like King Kong, which is really a conversation about civilization and barbarianism where civilization- read white, refined city etc- defeats barbarianism- read gorilla/animal with black cannibal natives from the wilderness- you’ll notice that it is a white woman who is kidnapped by the gorilla and who understands him in the end of the movie. A white woman in that movie as mediator and investigator of the ‘unknown’ or ‘incomprehensible’ becomes the site of negotiation between the powerful and powerless who does not have the legitimacy to speak for himself. In this scenario, two black men with a white female lawyer mirrors King Kong to me because she as mediator is speaking for the black man who has no authority to speak for himself. Don’t get me wrong, it is strategic to have a white woman represent the black man because it shows that white people were impacted too and that white people stand in solidarity with people of colour. However, it also falls into an endless cycle where in order for black people to challenge white authority they cannot do it directly, they must be spoken for or represented by a white person. What is a stake is who has the authority and the legitimacy to directly challenge white privilege and in this scenario, blacks do not possess such authority.

I also want to comment on the fact that one of the black guys in his interview on the Today Show referred to Latinos as Mexicans. When are we going to get with the program and realize that all Latinos are NOT from Mexico and should NOT be referred to as Mexicans? They are LATINOS! While it is true that they (the African-Americans)have internalized stereotypes about Latinos, their own prejudices do not have the same systemic impact that white prejudice has because they live in a white dominated society. This doesn’t mean that clumping Latinos is okay, it just means that it does not have the same impact.
Similarly, calling Kramer a ‘cracker’ at the show is not okay either but given the fact that racism as a system that historically and presently privileges white people and oppresses people of colour, black prejudices do not have the same consequences for whites. In other words, blacks also have their own prejudice against white people but do NOT possess the power to enforce that prejudice in a systematic way.

Perhaps the biggest problem with this horrific display of anti-black racism is that no one sees it as the display of a larger problem: systemic and systematic racism. Micheal Richards/Kramer has internalized prejudices against black people but we only acknowledge that racism exists when hate speech occurs. Even though statistically, people of colour do not have equal economic, social and political access we only think America has racism when white people use racial slurs or epithets. So the conversation switches to why all comedians should stop saying 'nigger' and 'bitch' without thinking about how a whole system is set up that privileges whites and disadvantages people of colour. The discussion on hate speech is not about dismantling white privilege in a systematic way, it is about making that privilege less visible. So we end up thinking when hate speech stops then racism no longer exists instead of thinking how can we dismantle the myth of the meritocracy.
©Danielle Roper

All videos coutesy of www.youtube.com

Point of interest:
Check out the latest article about the killing of an unarmed black man by police officers before his wedding: http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/11/189611.php