From: Sfrajett <Sfrajett-AT-aol.com> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 14:59:42 EDT Subject: Re: HNIC In a message dated 4/17/98 6:21:30 PM, Terri Senft wrote: <<is it *possible* to treat race ironically, in the US, without your irony being subsumed back into the same shitty system you tried to critique?>> I think that the Living Color example is a good one because it highlights questions of creative authorship, context, and audience (created and then reconsidered and thus recreated). I worry about South Park for the same reasons, as the stereotype of Chef, the hypersexual Black man singing Barry White songs about how to lay a woman down by the fire, is a central "laugh" in the show (as is killing Kenny). But if I don't laugh at the fact that everybody gets made fun of (does everybody?) then I don't get to join the cool post-pc fraternity of magically unmarked bodies. The question of course is WHO gets to treat race ironically for WHOM? I remember In Living Color as a show which began as geared primarily to an African-American (and male) audience, complete with inside jokes about stereotypes WITHIN African- American popular culture, fly girl dancers, etc. If non-AA audiences wanted to watch, fine, but they weren't the center (for a change). Yes, the two queens in men on film were stereotypes, but even they were hard to read for a while, seeming to push against the elision of black gay representations of any kind as much as capitulating to effeminate "drop the soap" humor. I remember gay people watching this very closely, and being quite divided over whether it was funny or not. Jim Carey got brought in as a send-up of whiteness, and I remember the show shifting to a "broader" audience and becoming a bunch of boring stereotypes trotted out for sure laughs, most of which felt like ridicule. I suspect the notion of a level playing field is surfacing once more, without consideration of inside and outside, or context. It is not funny to reduce an educated and accomplished man to the head butler in Ol Massa's house, unless the thrust is on the fact that Harvard IS Ol' Massa's house, which is not at all clear in the cryptic headline. In the context of a racist society, replete with a still very much intact symbolics of colonial discourse, the inside/outside ambiguity of the speaker is not politically determinable, and thus is a problem. Ambivalence does not menace, in this case, but only functions to reduce the achievements of a great man--and he is great whether you like him or not--to the favors conferred on a bonded and degraded lackey. This is our interpretive context, is it not? How can this so-called joke NOT fly back and hit Gates? If most of America does not believe race is socially constructed, then they wouldn't "get" racial irony, would they? I guess the humor turns on whether or not it is all behind us now. And who, I mean which constituencies precisely, get to put racial pain behind "us" now? Three guesses. So I guess this notion of universal subjects on even ground feels awfully paramnesiac to me! Did the last thirty years even happen, or did I dream it? --Best, Jaime --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005