Using Comedy to Address Racism

       One of my favorite forms of comedy is satire.  The definition of satire is: the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.  One of my favorite source of satirical comedy is the show South Park.  I know countless people that absolutely HATE the show.  They think it is the most inappropriate, most vile, most ignorant thing on TV.  Unfortunately, these people only look at the surface of the show and don't even try looking any deeper.  Under its "brain dead" and "stupid humor" exterior is a serious satirical interior.

       While most of the episodes touch on important modern day topics, there is one specific episode (Chef Goes Nanners S04E07) that I feel is most appropriate for our class:LINK TO EPISODE

                                                (screenshot from the mentioned episode)

       This episode is about whether or not the towns flag should be changed due to its racist appearance.  One of the black members of the town, Chef, is extremely offended by the flag and demands that it is changed.  Another member of the town, Jimbo, strongly believes that the flag is a major part of the towns history and should therefore not be changed.  Because it is such a touchy subject and they don't want to look bad, the town chooses to let the kids at the local school decide whether or not the flag should be changed.  The kids are told that they are to have a debate about the topic and to pick the side they want to argue for.  When two of the main characters, Stan and Kyle, choose to be on the side that supports the flag, Chef ridicules them and they are seen as racist.  When the debate starts, the side arguing that the flag should change makes their statement.  They argue that, "Often times it is prudent to change history.  As times change we hope to grow and as we grow our rules must change, it is a natural part of evolution".  When it is the other side's turn to argue against the changing of the flag, they argue that, "the fly shouldn't offend anyone because killing has been around since the beginning of time.  All animals kill and the animals that don't kill are stupid...so people should not be so upset about killing".  Chef immediately criticizes them for missing the point of the argument.  The kids explain that they didn't pay attention to the color of the peoples' skin because they didn't think it was important.  Chef then realizes that the kids didn't see the flag as racist because they didn't see it as four white people hanging a black person, but as five people.  The episode ends with both sides making a compromise to keep the flag but change the color of the peoples' skin.

(the changed flag)

       This episode does a great job addressing certain issues with racism.  One thing it addresses is how racism can be taught, mainly by adults to children.  When the kids explain to chef how they didn't pay attention to the color of the peoples' skin, he tells them that the flag is racist and they respond in a way that makes it seem as though they were wrong for thinking that it wasn't racist and that Chef was telling them the right way to look at it.  Another issue this episode addresses is the general public's fear of talking about racism.  In the episode, when any of the general public is asked about their opinion on the debate, they are always indecisive and afraid to offend either side.

Interracial couple arguing: Would you intervene?

This is the video that ABC News posted on Youtube about 4 years ago to test if people would intervene while interracial couple arguing in public. The director designed the experiment groups into two different kinds. The one with the White abusive man while the victim is African American, the other one is contrary. And both of the situations were happened as the man abusing the woman.

Turns out there were more women intervene in the "White-African American" arguing than they did to the other one. And we can see from the video that even there are some women intervene between the second couple, they were just asking if the woman need help, instead of yelling at the man and going forward to stop him. Even some men choose to pass by the second couple, which is the "African American-White" group. However, when the abusing gets physical, some bystanders started giving strong responds on what they saw.

The phenomenon above interested me a lot, and it made me want to ask what if you were in the video, passed by these kind of couples, would you intervene or which one group would you intervene? And what would you say to them? 

Take a look at the interview of those bystanders and the researchers, there is an obvious truth that if the abusing man is African American, then to those people who are trying to intervene, there exist more recessive threats. That might be an important reason that most interracial domestic violence happened between the couple which are in the same situation of the second experiment group.

To intervene, at the very first, people need a lot of courage. In my point of view, mostly, people who overcome their fear and intervene those couple are motivated by their "strong power", like having a dog accompanied or much taller than the abusing man. And the video also shows the audience a good part that nowadays more and more people are able to broke the racial stereotypes and getting into a positive color-blind situation. 

This is just a small test of would bystanders intervene interracial couples' argument, that might relate to how people see the phenomenon of interracial couples and maybe the domestic violence.

We are the Indians, Not Native Americans

       Many American Professional and collegiate sports teams are branded and have millions of dollars, creating mascots out of the heritage of Native Americans. Last week I reported on a statement that Barrack Obama gave on the logo of  the National Football team the Washington Redskins. In a very short statement Obama says that “If I were the owner of the team and I knew that there was a name of my team even if it had a storied history that was offending a sizeable group of people, I’d think about changing it,” In my opinion Obama was being generous by saying I'd think about it, this is a change that is long over due and is not only offending a sizeable group, The Redskins are wiping away the real identity of Native American Culture. Although not widely publicized, there are over 566 recognized Native tribes, that are all located within in North America. Those tribes are subjected to harmful and negative stereotypes when they are labeled as Indians by Sporting Franchises. These stereotypes are then reinforced by the a believed bond between the fans, organization, and city.  This bond only furthers rips apart the Native Americans from their cultural.

     Arguments that some Mascots that portray Native Americans, Such as Florida States Chief Seminole, are authentic and in fact help with awareness of Native American tribes and cultural practices are in my opinion completely inaccurate. University of Illinois was forced to stop using their mascot Chief Illiniwek in 2007 after years of fighting on both sides. The argument of the university was that not only was "The Chief" a cornerstone of the Universities Athletic history but also is a sign of cultural awareness by the university for Native American people. The Mascot performed a danced that wads suppose to be a traditional tribal dance, and also wore formal head wear and feathers. These "Traditional Practices" were later found out to just to be different movements and the attire had no historical relation to any Native tribe. These Images of Native Americans dancing around were all too common and is a constant fight even now in 2014.

WORKS CITED

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-10-23/news/chi-u-of-i-works-out-deal-on-use-of-chief-illiniwek-20131023_1_chief-society-roger-huddleston-the-news-gazette


http://www.ncai.org/attachments/policypaper_mijapmouwdbjqftjayzqwlqldrwzvsyfakbwthpmatcoroyolpn_ncai_harmful_mascots_report_ending_the_legacy_of_racism_10_2013.pdf


.http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/president-obama-says-id-think-about-changing-name-of-washington-redskins/2013/10/05/e170b914-2b70-11e3-8ade-a1f23cda135e_story.html

Ebola, Xenophobia, and Racism

Ebola is a virus is responsible for taking the at least 4,500 lives in the West African countries of Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Guinea (Ebola Fast Facts, CNN).  Three cases of Ebola have been diagnosed in United States in the past month, and one patient, Thomas Eric Duncan, was a Liberian citizen who died on US soil. His death has triggered country-wide anxiety, exposed America’s xenophobic beliefs and, in some cases, produced explicit racial discrimination.

American media coverage has inflicted us with the irrational fear that the United States is at considerable risk for the spread of Ebola. Patient Zero was a two-year-old from Guinea who died last December (Emergence of Zaire Ebola Virus Disease in Guinea, Baize). However, it was not until July when two (Caucasian) Americans, Dr. Kent Brantly and aid worker Nancy Writebol, were infected with the Ebola in Liberia that media coverage gained traction and attention in the United States (If news media had covered Ebola sooner, could latest outbreak have been contained, Farhi).

Three Caucasian people were successfully treated with an experimental drug, but when Duncan came to a Dallas emergency room reporting that he was recently in Liberia and was experiencing Ebola-like symptoms, he was sent home with antibiotics as if he had a bad cold. Two days later, of course, he returned to the hospital by which time it was too late to treat his Ebola virus and he subsequently expired. Some have attributed Duncan’s demise to a lack of communication between nurses and doctors. Others, like Duncan’s nephew, have insisted to the media that his inadequate care was a result of his race and lack of insurance (Ebola didn’t have to kill Thomas Eric Duncan, Weeks).

  

Months before Duncan came to America, a late August Newsweek installment featured a cartoon chimpanzee, with the caption, “Smuggled bush meat could spark a U.S. epidemic.” This portrayal equates chimpanzees with African people—and implies that African people who ate bush meat were the ones who began the recent epidemic that would shortly invade America. The Washington Post quickly released a story to disprove Newsweek’s theory, offering the theory that the outbreak was more likely due to fruit bats, “reservoirs of the Ebola virus” (The long and ugly tradition of treating Africa as a dirty, diseased place, Seay). This was given credibility based on an outbreak in May-November 2007 in the Congo.

Articles like Newsweek’s have been perpetuating xenophobia, the fear of foreigners. Elisabeth Hasselback from Fox News continues to question why America has yet to close its borders to planes flying in from western African countries, scroll down to see the video. To make matters worse, Republicans in Congress are trying to connect Ebola with immigrants crossing the US-Mexico border  (GOP strokes Ebola fears against immigrants, Santana). Their fear of Mexican immigrants carrying Ebola is an irrational smokescreen to advance their policy on border closures. There is absolutely no evidence to link these border issues with Ebola. Thousands of lives are lost in Africa due to the virus and the western media is putting the spotlight on Republicans making Ebola a political issue.                                                                              

 It is not just the Republicans who are raising fears. Navarro College, a community college in 

Texas, is refusing admission to students from “countries with confirmed Ebola cases” (Ebola Racism Reaches a New Low in Texas, Haglage). A Houston resident with a Nigerian brother-in-law and his nephew both simultaneously received rejection letters citing, “At this time, we believe it is the responsible thing to do to postpone our recruitment in those nations that the Center for Disease Control and the U.S. State Department have identified as at risk” (Ebola Racism Reaches a New Low in Texas, Haglage).This college is making the assumption that everyone from Ebola-infected countries is dangerous.  This attitude is even more concerning because Nigeria, after 42 Ebola free days, has been declared Ebola-free (WHO declares Nigeria Ebola-Free, Reuters) 


Ebola has spurred fear in the United States. The nightly news always has a segment on the status of identified Ebola victims in this country. This is a potential public health crisis to be sure, but Following the failure to recognize Duncan’s symptoms as Ebola, health professionals across the country are on high alert to raise flags and sound alarms when a patient’s history and symptoms suggest possible Ebola virus.  President Obama has even appointed a “czar” to oversee all responses to victims and to potential victims (Appointment of Ebola Czar Creates Controversy, NBC). But even the “czar” won’t be able to quell the worst responses to Ebola—those situations where it is used as an excuse to forward a political agenda or to the unfounded exclusion of people simply because of their race or ethnicity. America has always opened its doors to everyone and should not suddenly shut them because of Ebola. Our health professionals are ready and prepared-so should American society.