Potpourri

Every once in a while, there is so much going on that we have to offer a "potpourri" entry. (What that really means, of course, is that neither of us is able to find a clever theme to tie the disparate items together in any meaningful way.) On such occasions, we look forward to your input to expand on our brief analysis.


Jamie Foxx Makes Bigoted Remark

On his satellite radio program, Jamie Foxx and his colleagues enjoyed a brief, but horribly offensive attack on teen pop sensation Miley Cyrus that included calling her a "White bitch." Foxx quickly moved to apologize publicly, appearing on The Tonight Show, but there is no excuse for his behavior. As many conservative commentators pointed out, leftists move to boycott or have fired White folks who make such remarks. While we disagree with reciprocity arguments surrounding elements of racism, bigotry should, indeed, be held to a standard that involves equal punishment for equal offenses. In other words, while it is not appropriate to say that a Black comedian joking about White folks is as troublesome as a White comedian joking about Black folks, racially-provocative name calling and hateful language should be equally condemned. Further, at least in this case, the racial nature of the comment did not work to significantly add to the humor -- it was simply gratuitous.

Foxx was correct to apologize, but conservatives were also correct in this case to call "foul." Defenders who claim that Foxx "goes hard on everybody" (as the person who compiled the YouTube clip linked above does) are not on solid footing here. We wouldn't accept that logic from Don Imus, and we cannot accept it here.


First Black Disney Princess

After a gaggle of White princesses (Cinderella, Snow White, Aurora, Ariel, and Belle) was joined by Native American (Pocahontas), East Asian (Mulan) and Arab (Jasmine) "royalty," Disney has pushed forward with an anticipated film featuring a Black princess. Tiana, who was originally to be named "Maddy" when the film was announced two years ago, will be the central figure in the upcoming The Frog Princess. The film has apparently taken a while to produce because of concerns about how the princess was portrayed in the original script. Jezebel reported last summer that the original name may have sounded too much like "Mammy," and that the character was too submissive, leading to concerns about connections with slavery.

The new formula is getting its share of criticism, too. Apparently, the prince is White, and Tiana is depicted in fashion similar to other "ethnic" princesses (and Barbie dolls, for that matter): she is dark skinned but otherwise has features more often associated with Caucasians (e.g., straight hair, thin nose) -- a "sexualized version of white women," according to Janel at Sugar and Spice v. Rough and Tough. See the CNN story about the film here and the official "teaser," embedded below.




USSC Hears "Reverse Discrimination" Case

The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week in Ricci v. DeStefano, a case that involves claims of reverse discrimination. After a test resulted in disproportionate success for White applicants for promotion within the New Haven (CT) Fire Department, the City determined the test to be racially biased and nullified the results. The firefighters who would have been promoted (a group that includes White non-Hispanic firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter) argue that they are victims of reverse discrimination. There is a lot of legal minutiae in this case, and there are a number of complex factors that have been debated by folks on both sides THIS WEEK. We turn your attention to arguments by Ilya Shapiro of The Cato Institute, the folks at Firelink.com, Acting White, and a panel of law experts at the American Constitution Society.


McCain Works to Clear Name of Boxer

Senator John McCain is working to urge President Obama to grant a presidential pardon to the late Jack Johnson, who was the first African American heavyweight boxing champion. As CNN reported this week:

Less than five years after winning the heavyweight title, Johnson was convicted for violating the Mann Act, which outlawed the transportation of women across state lines for "immoral" purposes.

Johnson was black and the woman was white -- enough to get even a champion imprisoned in early 20th century America. Justice Department lawyers decried it as a "crime against nature" for him to have a sexual relationship with a white woman.

Johnson was convicted by an all-White jury and fled into exile for a number of years until he surrendered to authorities in 1920. He served a 10-month sentence and died in an automobile accident in 1946. McCain, whose civil rights position has been marred by what he has since admitted to be a mistake in voting against the federal Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, is leading the charge with fellow Republican, New York Congressman Peter King.

Working to right an obvious past act of racism is no substitute for working to uproot systemic racism in the present, but it is nonetheless a welcome action on the part of these two public servants. Nice work, fellas! Let's just hope that the president goes for it.

Black Tea, White Tea: Making Sense of the Outrage

Across the country, angry Americans, the overwhelming majority of whom were White, gathered THIS WEEK to protest. What they were protesting is open to some discussion, but at the very least, there was concern about the latest round of deficit spending.

It has been argued that the "parties," instigated by conservative think tanks, supported and sponsored by conservative media and pundits, and with rhetoric aimed disproportionately at the Obama administration, were exercises in hypocrisy and "faux populism." For our part, we took notice of racial message that came forward, though they were relatively few, in part because organizers asked participants to avoid such messages in their signs.

Supporters of the tea parties, pejoratively referred to as "teabaggers" in the blogosphere, have been very defensive with respect to the racist charges, arguing (validly) that one ought to be able to criticize a Black president without being called "a racist." We use this space to attempt to explain how scholarly criticisms of racism differ from playground accusations, and why the former are appropriate to consider and apply to the parties.

First, we point out that folks who study racism and racial discourse by and large do not use the word "racist" as a noun (as in "He is a racist."). This is because the term is used to refer not to individual-level prejudice, but systemic oppression that is rooted in narratives and institutions that perpetuate and reinforce such individual attitudes. Since everyone who is socialized within a system characterized by historic inequality based on race is affected deeply (and subconsciously) by those messages, everyone is racist. (Note that we did not say that everyone is a racist). Colloquially, the term is used to identify persons who are unabashedly prejudiced on the basis of skin color. For that, we use the term "bigot."

The distinction is crucial because conflation of the terms leads to an assumption that there is virtually no racism left. Since there are only a handful of bigots among us, it is comforting to believe that we are not "racist" if we don't use the "n-word" or consciously base judgments on skin color. That's convenient, but it's dangerous because it has led to our collective inability to meaningfully confront the most pressing issues of racism in America.

Second, people who are supportive of the "tea party" messages broadly have tended to try to explain how some of the signs were not "racist" because there were plausible explanations for the designers' intentions that do not involve race. That is, there are cries that Obama supporters are "using race" to discredit otherwise valid opponents of the Administration. It is important to note that we divorce "racism" from intent because, as social scientists, we are primarily concerned with effect. That does not mean that it is not worth considering the intent of those propagating the messages; it just means that it is a task better left to journalist and scholars in the humanities. For us, it is enough to acknowledge that such messages are potentially not "bigoted" in the sense that someone consciously attempted to play on negative racial predispositions. We are all driven to some extent by our racism (as defined above), so arguments about whether there was consciousness involved in the design of the message is irrelevant to our point that such messages are rooted in and subsequently prime subconscious racist sentiments.

Actor and activist Janeane Garofolo drew a lot of criticism for saying that the "parties" were essentially exercises in racism by "rednecks." Her language is not helpful in the sense that while it drew attention, it undermined more thoughtful and clearly articulated points about the racial nature of the discourse at work at these events.



Huffington Post covered the events and posted pictures of some of the "most offensive" signs, some of which had racial undertones. We took the liberty to lift some of these and post them below with annotations that we hope will make it easier to understand why these messages can be considered to be racially insensitive.

This image depicts a Black man (ostensibly Obama) slitting the throat of Uncle Sam from behind. While the violence is offensive, it also works to prime racist fears of Black violence. If the president was White and a similar poster were made with the White president, there would be no issue. For some, that is the rationale for why there accusations of racism here are unfounded. That relies, of course, on what we (and others) have referred to (in this space and elsewhere) as the "false reciprocity" fallacy. In other words, just because a similar message could easily be made about a White person does not mitigate the racist nature of the message. If there were no history of racism and, thus, no negative stereotypes about people of color, then reciprocal arguments would be valid. But there are no myths about "White violent criminals," so messages like these are more effective as a result of racist predispositions.

This image is racist because it wouldn't make very much sense if the president were not African American. The phrase was made popular by the character Arnold Jackson, played by the actor Gary Coleman, in the 1970s/1980s sitcom "Diff'rent Strokes." If it were a contemporary common phrase, we might not be as concerned, but given the history, it is impossible for anyone to hear (or read) the phrase without an image of little (Black) Arnold Jackson's face, screwed up in a combination of confusion and contempt, rhetorically "asking" his brother, Willis, what he was "talkin' about." The degree of "offense" is lower in this image than in the above image because Arnold was a beloved figure, but the unnecessary connection to race is troublesome because it prompts us to think about Obama's race, thus activating our racial schemata and making accessible other information about African Americans -- most of which is negative -- as we evaluate Obama.

The level of ethnic insensitivity here does not need much explanation. Analogies to Nazis or Hitler are all too common in our contemporary discourse, and this is merely another example. It is clear that a number of people are upset about governmental spending, but suggestions that paying taxes -- even more than one believes is appropriate -- is on par with the attempted systematic extermination of an entire ethnic group are not only unfounded, but profoundly offensive.






Reminiscent of the "little girl monkey" imitation we saw at a McCain/Palin rally during the campaign, this youngster displays a sign that plays on stereotypes of Black folks as "not quite human." Such messages were important during the dehumanization of Africans during slave times and the continual denial of rights to African Americans during Jim Crow. As we have seen recently with the Washington Times editorial cartoon, such imagery still evokes powerful emotions and criticism.


This message references the 1990s-era In Living Color skit that featured African American comedian Damon Wayans as a parolee who does his community service by playing a clown named "Homey." According to a Wikipedia entry, "His goal in life is to get even with 'The Man,' a personification of the white males he thinks are "holding him down." There would be concern about the sign even if it were held by a person of color because it references a character that is criminal and suggests that Obama is motivated by a desire to harm Whites (as was suggested throughout the campaign in a variety of ways). As always, it is even more unnerving to see a White person use Black cultural images to criticize an African American.



ACORN has been criticized for the corrupt practices that have been uncovered in some of their work. The organization is designed to empower poor persons, particularly those in urban settings, by advocating for housing fairness, in part through registering people to vote. The corruption was a result of the organization paying persons for registering voters on a "price-per-registration" system, which led to some folks falsifying registration forms. Republicans and conservatives alleged that Obama's supporters were trying to "steal" the elections (imagery that plays on predispositions about African Americans and crime), even though votes could never be cast by folks who did not exist. While criticism of ACORN's practices are valid, the organization had nothing to do with the ostensible purpose of the "tea parties" last week, unless one buys into the conspiracy theories about Obama's election being a result of corrupt practices.

This sign addresses the non-issue about Obama's birth certificate, where opponents have tried to argue that he is not really a natural born citizen. While the question may have been valid when it was first raised, it has been addressed a number of times, culminating with the U.S. Supreme Court weighing in on the issue. See this video of a "tea party" in Cleveland in February where protesters claim with some confidence that Obama is lying about his citizenship status, some noting that he is Kenyan. This plays into racist notions of Black folks as untrustworthy and "other" that are pervasive subconscious beliefs among Americans.




This last image speaks for itself.

In short, what we hope readers will recognize is that while there are "wingnuts" from all parts of the political spectrum, thoughful analysts who are concerned about racism at these assemblies are neither claiming that all criticisms of Obama are racist in nature nor arguing that even the folks holding these signs are themselves bigots. If we are to make progress with respect to race relations, though, we must be diligent about pointing out where these messages appear, how they work, and why they are effective.

Wrestling with Racism: Neo-colonialism and "TNA"

We're guessing that our regular readers were anticipating a blog about Betty Brown, the Texas state legislator who suggested that Asian Americans change their names so that they're "easier for Americans to deal with?” It's already getting a lot of attention, and we don't have much more to add. Racialicious does a great job explaining the various elements that render this statement worthy of critical attention.



Or maybe folks expect us to discuss the Turkish newsman who reported on Barack Obama's recent visit while in black face (see below). This one is a bit trickier because while it is patently offensive to Americans, there are cultural considerations that deserve attention in a full analysis. We have asked someone more familiar with the language and culture to draft an analysis for our companion blog, This GUEST on Race. We hope to have something appear in that space soon, but until then, see commentary from Atlas Shrugs, which references a video explanation by Young Turks that by and large confirms our culturally-constrained impression, but offers some context.



Instead, we turn our attention back to the realm of popular culture THIS WEEK, focusing on a genre that we have not previous addressed: professional wrestling.

The April 9, 2009 episode of TNA Impact contained a match that featured a Black woman named Awesome Kong (recall the controversy over LeBron James's image on the cover of Vogue last year, below) fighting three Barbie-esque White women, collectively named The Beautiful People. Before we even get to the imagery of the fight (i.e., the violent interaction of these two symbols), we should give some attention to the parties individually.


Besides the Vogue cover, there has been considerable attention given in the past year to ape or monkey images as applied to African Americans. In this space alone, we have commented on the blatantly bigoted Obama monkey doll and little girl doing a monkey impersonation at McCain-Palin rallies in Pennsylvania, the Obama sock puppet, and the insensitive New York Post cartoon. And we haven't even mentioned the Obama Chia Pet (left), which is considered to be racist by many (and has been removed from some Walgreen's stores' shelves).

The image of Awesome Kong (played by Kia Stevens) is striking. Not only is she named after perhaps the most famous primate in popular culture (including the original movie, remakes, and video games), but the character makes menacing animal faces (and does not speak, so far as we can tell).

Dehumanizing images are not new in professional wrestling. Previous generations have been entertained by the likes of George "the Animal" Steele, who had hair in places that we didn't even know hair could grow on a human, as well as a green tongue. Further, the notion of a wrestler whose very species might be called into question has been replicated over the decades (think Andre the Giant, for instance). There has even been another "Kong" -- King Kong Bundy -- who is White. So what's the big deal?

"Why, TWIR guys, is it okay for White wrestlers to be dehumanized but not a Black wrestler?"

First, we should note that dehumanization is to be avoided in any case. We understand that there are times in entertainment and literary contexts where such portrayals have a role, but the line between reality and fantasy in professional wrestling is blurry enough to cause concern. The question about us not being critical when it happens to White wrestlers brings us back to the reciprocity fallacy: what is acceptable for those in positions of relative power and privilege may not be acceptable when applied to members of groups that have been historically oppressed. It's the reason that comedians (of any ethnicity) can make fun of Whites, but only African Americans can make fun of Black folks, for example. If the joke can serve to perpetuate injustice, it's inappropriate; if it can work to undermine it, it is acceptable.

In fact, one of the dehumanized characters in professional wrestling is Junkyard Dog, a Black man who assumed the role of. . . well, you get it. While it is always troublesome for a Black person to be seen in a dehumanized context given the widespread dehumanization that characterized so much of the African American experience, there is more concern when the animal in question is a primate because of the long-standing offensive imposition of that imagery toward Blacks.

So that's bad enough on its own, but Awesome Kong (formerly known as Amazing Kong) has been around for a couple of years, so this is not new. What got our attention THIS WEEK was the contrast in "Kong's" match with three White women dressed in provocative attire (breasts exposed and pushed up high, tiny shorts -- one with fishnet stockings -- or skin-tight pants) and looking very much like living Barbie dolls (an important sexist objectification and dehumanization in its own right). These women, presented as ornaments for the sexual gratification of the overwhelmingly heterosexual male (and White) audience, are conspicuously named The Beautiful People.

The reduction of women to spectacle is part and parcel to what TNA is all about: the very name, which stands for "Total Nonstop Action," is a play on the colloquial reference to "tits and ass" ("T & A"). As the women enter the ring, they writhe suggestively, using the ropes as phallic props (left). Even though these women are presented as villains in the context of the program (their signature "move" is cutting the long hair of their female opponents, presumably making them even less "beautiful" by denying them one of the symbolic indicators of conventional beauty), the bias toward European-style feminine beauty is clear: all of the women are White and have long, flowing blonde hair. Their bodies are artificially curvy at the top and fitness-thin elsewhere. In short, they look as if they just walked off the cover of Maxim or FHM or any other of a number of objectifying "men's" magazines that tacitly advocate that women's only worth resides in what can be seen in the photos.

The clash of these two images -- the White fantasy sexpot and the savage Black creature -- is reminiscent of the colonialist psyche: the good, desirable, refined Europeans are destined to conquer, tame and even enslave the Africans with force. In the match, "Kong" wins, but not before providing imagery suitable for a heterosexual male fantasy of lesbianism (left). As is often the case in professional wrestling, though, the "match" doesn't end when the bell sounds. The "Beautiful People" team up against "Kong" as she celebrates her victory and attacks her (below). (Since neither of us regularly watches TNA, we are not sure why there would be a three-against-one match in the first place.) They beat her viciously (to crowd jeers), and ultimately pull out a pair of shears in an attempt to cut her braids. At that point, another scantily-dressed White woman rushes the ring (some rival, we surmise), and the segment ends.


To get the full effect (if that's really necessary), you may wish to watch the action for yourself. You can see it here (the match begins at about the 55-minute mark of the broadcast).

"But, professors, isn't 'Kong' choosing to have herself portrayed that way? She's Black, so it must be okay, right?"

This provides an excellent illustration of the difference between racism and bigotry. We are guessing that Ms. Stevens does not hate Black people (that is, she's not bigoted toward African Americans). It's also probable that she does not recognize that she is contributing to racist stereotypes by the image she projects. If she is and continues to do it anyway, we should consider the context of that decision: Who is really making the money from this imagery? What pressure is she under to perform like this? What are the parameters of the choices she has?

Racism is not about White people being bad and doing bad things while people of color are saintly victims. The power of racism is that it affects everyone in a racist society in the same direction (to privilege and propagate White supremacy). The fact that actors of color throughout history have contributed to racist stereotypes reflects the pervasiveness of racist images; it does not mitigate the racist nature of those images. The American imagination is shaped by, saturated with and burdened by narratives of colonization that center on manifest destiny and the inherent "goodness" of Europeans.

A critical examination of THIS WEEK's episode of TNA is revealing, interesting and informative. A passive viewing of the episode, though, has the propensity to solidify and perpetuate harmful stereotypes.

THIS WEEK's Non-Racists: A Couple of Bigots

We continue our occasional series featuring "non-racists": people who are caught making racially insensitive statements or statements that reveal their racism or bigotry but claim that something other than racism is to blame. Long-time TWIR readers will recall some of the previous "episodes": Joe Biden, Michael Richards and Clint Eastwood, "Dog" the Bounty Hunter, John Gibson, Don Imus and, most recently, Arnold Kling.

THIS WEEK, the perpetrators are lesser known, but their claims of not being racist are so remarkable that we had to share them with you.

Lyons, Illinois is a tiny village outside of Chicago. On the way to a parade last summer, the village president, David Visk, and a village trustee, Richard Schuppe, were riding in a police car. Visk put on the siren and flashing lights to the car, which, unbeknownst to him, triggered a video and audio recording system (only audio is recorded inside the car) that captured the exchange. You can see a video of the story below (or here), which contains the relevant parts of the recording and some belligerent defensiveness by the offending parties.



In addition to some disgusting displays of sexism (Vick notes that he likes the parade route because it provides a view up women's skirts), the racist elements are clear and bold. From the Chicago Tribune story:

Schuppe is heard using the "n-word" to describe a man who delivered a refrigerator to his home. Commenting on the price of the refrigerator, Visk told Schuppe that the worker should have thrown in a free watermelon, though Visk said the comment was not racially motivated.

"What?" you might ask? "Not racially motivated? What possible explanation could there be, then?"

Oh, dear reader, there is one: "Knowing Mr. Schuppe as many years as I have, he happens to be fond of that particular fruit," Visk said Wednesday.

We could not make this up. The guy actually wants us to believe that he knows his friend so well that, upon learning that a [n-word] delivered his expensive refrigerator, he noted that it would have been kind of the African American gentleman to have provided an advance supply of the fruit of Mr. Schuppe's choice. If Mr. Schuppe was fond of pineapple, this would not even be an issue! Poor guy: a victim of his taste in fruit.

We are less concerned with the actual incident -- these guys are clearly flat-out bigots -- as we are with the explanations and excuses that they offered. Again, from the Tribune's coverage:

Schuppe, who is in the middle of a four-year term, was reluctant to talk about the matter.

"I have made all of the apologies that are necessary," he said. "I have apologized profusely on television over the statements I said. It was something that just came out in the middle of a sentence, and I apologized for it."

Visk said he wishes the incident never happened.

"I made an inappropriate remark about the women and that was out of line," he said. "That was locker-room talk. I regret the entire tape, everything on it, good, bad or otherwise."

Visk said he may have switched on the recording device when he turned on the patrol car's lights and sirens. The village president, who has a daughter, said his comments were inappropriate.

"We didn't realize we were being recorded," he said. "We didn't mean for it to go out in the public like that, and we can't be any more apologetic."

As for Schuppe's use of the racial epithet, Visk said this is the first time he has ever heard the trustee use the term.

"I have known him for quite a long time," Visk said. "He is a former police officer. He has been out serving the public now for his entire life. Obviously, it was a slip of the tongue. He is not a racist. He is one of the top public servants in the Village of Lyons."

Asked whether he would do things differently, Visk said, "If we had known we are going to be recorded, we wouldn't talk like that."

Ok, so let's break this down a bit.

1. Schuppe dismisses the behavior as "something that just came out of [his] mouth." The suggestion here is that it is not reflective of his true feelings. This is a typical response of non-racists. Recall Michael Richards's apology on David Letterman's show, where he said “I’m not a racist. That’s what’s so insane about this.” The "possessed by a racist demon" excuse doesn't fly. As Dawn Turner Trice notes in her post about the Lyons episode on the Exploring Race site, the "apology" is more about being sorry that they were caught than sorry that they harbor racial resentment. Visk dismisses the sexist remark as "locker room talk," which means that it's acceptable there, but what is not acceptable is saying it in polite company. He seems to have no clue as to how offensive, demeaning and dangerous the attitude is (not just the manifestation of the attitude).

2. Also by way of explanation, if not excuse, Visk says that they didn't mean for it to become public. No kidding? Again, the apology seems to be about the fact that it became public. Well, who is harmed by it going public? The women they objectified? The minorities they insulted? Those folks are all harmed by the fact that public figures have these deeply-held beliefs and attitudes in the first place; the fact that it became public only harmed the Visk and Schuppe.

3. In the video (above) Schuppe insists that if Fox News Chicago's Dan Placko got together with his male friends (and, since we suspect he doesn't know Mr. Placko personally, any of us would do) in an "all-male environment," the same thing would happen. While he may be right that most bigots and overt sexists are more skillful in hiding their level of social ineptitude and ignorance, it is not the case that this kind of language takes place in all or even most gatherings of men. For his part, Visk is similarly certain that at any "card game," similar langauge could be heard. This is a good illustration of "projection," which is a psychological concept where people ascribe their own thoughts and feelings to others to innoculate against or combat any dissonance between them and others. Visk and Schuppe very well may have never been to a party where such ideas were openly batted about, but it may have more to do with the company they keep than the realities of "all" men's experiences. On the other hand, it is true that social norms keep the reality of White, heterosexual, men's resentments more or less "underground," masking the true status of our progress toward equality.

4. Finally, in the Tribune story, Visk offers that Schuppe couldn't be a bigot because he's known him a long time and he's never used the word before. First, it's a suspicious claim. Given the social norm against using such a word, what are the chances that a person who knew someone for a long time would be caught using it the very first time? And the rest of the evidence that Schuppe isn't a bigot is equally unbelievable: "He is a former police officer. He has been out serving the public now for his entire life."

Ok. We got it. Public servants cannot possibly have racial resentments. That would suggest that perhaps racial profiling is in practice and the justice, political and social systems are biased against women and persons of color and perpetuate White male privilege. Hey, wait a minute!

In all seriousness, though, the danger is not these two low-level, largely irrelevant bigots, but rather their belief that they might explain away their attitudes with such lame justifications. When we called out Joe Biden and Arnold Kling, it seemed clear to us that their sins were about understanding, not maliciousness. They simply do not understand the racial dynamics that are at work in this country. People like these two guys, Michael Richards and "Dog" the Bounty Hunter, though, are in a different classification. They are caught not just being racist, but being overtly bigoted, yet they try to explain it away by suggesting that the problem was one of the conversation being made public, propagated by political opponents. If the tapes were continually running and an analysis conducted of all of our words throughout our lives, none of us would be spared the label of "racist," though probably very few of us would be caught being bigoted. There is a difference, but at the end of the day, it is reflective of our current racial climate, which is much improved, but nowhere near equal.

In a more racially sensitive world, not only would these two be chastised by the public and the media (as they rightly have been), but they would not have even attempted to sway a portion of the public with their silly excuses.

We advocate for a political culture in which the only available response when something like this surfaces is for the culprits to say, "I don't think that Black folks are as smart, hard working, or deserving as White folks. I know that's not popular, but it's what I believe." That is the truth. That is honest. Any alternate explanation should not even be able to be considered. The fact that we operate in a context where those explanations will, in fact, be embraced by some, is further evidence of the work we need to do.