Blogosphere: thoughts on Dave Chappelle’s racial pixies sketch at We’ve moved to www.racialicious.com

Blogosphere: thoughts on Dave Chappelle’s racial pixies sketch

CVK
racial pixie dave chappelle This past Sunday evening, Comedy Central finally aired the sketch that created the crisis of conscience for Dave Chappelle. You can watch them for yourself on YouTube: part 1 and part 2, which includes the audience Q&A.

A May 2005 Time magazine article described it this way:

He was taping a sketch about magic pixies that embody stereotypes about the races. The black pixie–played by Chappelle–wears blackface and tries to convince blacks to act in stereotypical ways. Chappelle thought the sketch was funny, the kind of thing his friends would laugh at. But at the taping, one spectator, a white man, laughed particularly loud and long. His laughter struck Chappelle as wrong, and he wondered if the new season of his show had gone from sending up stereotypes to merely reinforcing them. “When he laughed, it made me uncomfortable,” says Chappelle. “As a matter of fact, that was the last thing I shot before I told myself I gotta take f______ time out after this. Because my head almost exploded.”

racial pixies dave chappelle I just watched it last night and am still formulating my thoughts, so in the meantime, here are a few other bloggers’ opinions on the sketch. First up, Jenn from Reappropriate:

…The racial pixies are incorrigible: Chappelle should not have been surprised that people would be laughing at the wrong thing. The sketch is designed to depict racial stereotypes at their worst, and place them as commentary to modern-day situations. What’s funny is not the commentary that the minstrelsy is making on reality, but the minstrelsy itself. This is no more apparent than the punctuations of laughter we hear from the studio audience as the sketch airs. There is no question that, in the first sketch, the audience is laughing not at Chappelle confronted with a blackface pixie, but the pixie’s cooning…

More after the jump…

…Chappelle is no victim here. The moment he donned blackface to make his audience laugh, he should have realized that people would be laughing at the wrong thing. He set himself up to be the racial clown — it should have come as no surprise that his eager-to-laugh audience would have found his racialized antics more accessible than the “message” behind the sketch. The message is only funny to those who understand — the sketch isn’t able to, by itself, explain racial politics — and make it humorous — for outsiders…

Bomani Jones thinks that the carefully-edited and rather flaccid audience Q&A that followed the sketches was an attempt by Comedy Central to discredit Chappelle:

For Comedy Central to touch on what concerned Dave, it would have to talk to some regular, run-of-the-mill white folks and ask them why they found the sketch to be humorous. After all, those are the people that worried Dave. Instead, they asked a bunch of black folks, just about all of whom commented on how we can’t worry about what white people think and how the show was funny and how you just need to be funny and stuff like that.

Y’okay.

Comedy Central can’t piss on my head and tell me it’s raining. The network tried to play it as though it was simply trying to encourage some discourse on a controversial topic. But what really was going on? An attempt to discredit Dave for leaving the show, an attempt to show that he was off in his assessment of the sketch. And it was done in a way that anyone with a quasi-decent ability to see through rhetoric could tell was bullshit.

And finally, Philip Arthur Moore from TheThink weighs in on the audience reactions as well:

1) My fear is that non-blacks who fetishize black culture/comedy crave black people who say they have no problem with Dave Chappelle’s comedy. The people who were on the “be easy about it” tip made every person’s day watching that. Or at least every person who loves black comedy without understanding where it comes from.

2) APIAs were extremely absent from the dialogue that took place. At least the bits of it that were aired. How did the Japanese feel seeing Dave poke fun at them? Did anyone else besides me cringe when Pixie Dave committed Seppuku? There’s so much history in that action that gets lost in this skit. Notice the black man in the audience refer to APIAs as “yellow” people. Hear the unease in the crowd?

Trackbacks & Pings

Dork Nation on 10 Aug 2006 at 9:50 pm

Chappelle, Foxworthy, Foxyworthy, Chappelle…

AC asked awhile back about whether or not white people could discuss “race honestly,” a question that though rhetorical and full of assumptions, can be answered. Yes, white people can discuss race honestly, however that doesn’t always…
August 2006 New Demographic Newsletter at New Demographic - an anti-racism training company on 24 Sep 2006 at 5:32 pm

[…] If you were wondering what happened to Dave Chappelle, take a look at the sketch that apparently served as a big turning point for Dave. Being in the role of the black pixie, made him realize that there was a fine line between sending up stereotypes and reinforcing them. […]

Comments

eric wrote:

I’m co-signing 99.999% with Bomani on this one.

I almost have too many thoughts on the topic to know where to get started…

First of all, I thought the skit was OK, nowhere near his funniest stuff, but that I think he hit on most of the major “internal” stereotypes that groups deal with on a daily basis.

Maybe I’ve just lived an awkward existence, but haven’t we all heard non-asians slurring their l’s into r’s all the time to be “funny”, and conversely haven’t we met a bunch of asian immigrants who apologize profusely for their “bad english” (in quotes because usually its not bad at all, and its much better then my .)

Haven’t we all had that internal debate when surrounded by large numbers of white people (potential co-workers for example), and feeling that pressure of “being a spokesman for the race”? IE not playing into stereotypes?

People often criticize how “over the top” some of Chappelles skits can be, but the reality is, dealing with topics such as this are largely no win situations.

If you don’t address the topics of racism at all as a black comedian, then you’re considered soft and not keeping it real (example: Sinbad)

if you address the topics of racism too subtly, then when you do want to speak out for real, you get criticized for not having done enough sooner to have the “credibility” to touch on such topics (example: Bill Cosby)

If you address the topics of racism too seriously, then people complain “I don’t want to be preached to” (example: Bamboozled)

If you address the topics of racism in a funny way, but in an extreme way (example: Boondocks/Chappelles show) then “The message is lost in the comedy”, “People are laughing at the wrong things”

This discussion is a CRITICAL discussion, maybe THE discussion that black America (and the world at large) is going to have to have with itself.

While I’m unhappy that Chappelle is seemingly villified in this whole thing. The fact he walked away in the manner that he did, over what he did is proof enough about how much thought and care went into his skits in terms of being not only funny, but having a relevant message as well. When he felt that the message wasn’t coming across correctly, he decided maybe a new path was in order.

I’ve read numerous opinions saying “Chappelle was a sellout, and he realized it”, “Chappelle realized he was cooning, and had to put a stop to it”, but these same people will talk about how much they love 50-cent, Jay-Z, , and they’re not making the connections.

It makes me very uncomfortable to see people attacking the satirists instead of the objects of that satire, its a misdirection of anger 101, and if we silence those black voices who are actually brave enough to *gasp* challenge black america *gasp*, this problem is only going to spiral out of control.

My post is a bit too ‘black’ specific for my own tastes, I’m certainly not trying to exclude anyone, I think my initial thoughts attempt to deal with the inner black dynamic because i’m most disappointed in how some black americans are reacting to Chappelle, and satire in general.

Posted 19 Jul 2006 at 10:24 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:

I think a lot of black Americans are disappointed and maybe in attack mode because Dave Chappelle was a crossover, someone who was being talked about in mainstream (read: white) media. So for him to walk away after one season where he was making waves and getting attention may seem harsh to some fans. How many times do you have a black comic getting positive attention for the things he talks about in “mainstream” media? AND who isn’t on UPN?

(Personally, I have more issues w/ the WAY he walked out, rather than the walkout. Unless he had a good escape clause in his contract (and he may have for all I know), wouldn’t his “disappearance” be some kind of breach of contract?)

I don’t think it was the black fans Chappelle was worried about. As pointed out in early posts, Comedy Central, bless ‘em, is v.v. pale.

Posted 19 Jul 2006 at 10:54 am ¶
Merq wrote:

That was disturbing AND unfunny.

Eric:

I’m sorry, but I don’t think you can blame people for attacking so-called “satirists” like Aaron McGruder, who put food on their tables by slagging off the entire black race. Similarly, you can’t simply say that Chappelle is absolved because he was satirizing depictions of blacks, without considering the manner in which he engages in said satire.

Guess what. As was said in the Time piece, many of Chappelle’s skits FURTHERED the stereotypes they were supposed to be mocking. Therefore, I think it’s fair to question the messenger along with the message, because contrary to the commonly-parroted phrase implies, it’s not okay “as long as it gets us to think about race.”

As far as that show goes, I can definitely see a decline into complete irresponsibility now. Did anyone catch the bit where Donnell Rawlings cut an audience member off, saying “When you’re black, all you’ve gotta do is throw in a few ‘nah mean’s and ‘yo’s. No need for all that talking.”

That, unfortunately, is what we’re left with now. I dare anyone to tell me that’s satirizing racial issues.

Posted 19 Jul 2006 at 12:43 pm ¶
bertie wrote:

I definitely agree that the skit was failed from inception. I think the humor was supposed to come from each person recognizing that they’ve had these types of internal debates, the punchline is the way the mere spector of appearing like a known stereotype drives people to change their behavior (ie, the stupidity of letting other’s racial hang-ups affect our actions). The actual visual of the pixie was not even necessary for the joke–you can see this in the reaction the jewish audience member got when he noted that he overpaid tabs because of the negative sterotypes against jews. The crowd laughed without seeing the image of an old hasidic (sp) man/pixie rubbing pennies together.

But what happens when the majority of your audience does not identify with this type of internal debate because there are no specific stereotypes closely associated with their culture? It doesn’t effect them so much, and thus the basic premise isn’t so funny. So with the punchline diminished, the only thing left that’s truly “funny” for some is the pixie acting and saying very stereotypical things.

Its clear from the comment of the white “tom cruise look-a-like” that “everybody loves chicken and watermelon is a tasty fruit” that he clearly missed the point. Of course everybody loves chicken–but only black folks are infamous for their love of fried chicken and most blacks know or fear that the sight of them eating chicken or watermelon will conjur up and be used to validate ALL the negative stereotypes about blacks, even if the person seeing them eat knows its a just a stereotype. Really-I could care less if someone saw me eating watermelon–but I don’t want the fact that someone saw me eating watermelon to conjur up stereotypes of me being shiftless, lazy, feeble minded etc. Thats the point I think the white guy missed and his inability to see this point is why the skit was flawed from the start.

Posted 19 Jul 2006 at 1:48 pm ¶
eric wrote:

Merq,

This seems to be the major issue we disagree on

People *can* blame/attack satirists if they want, but the fact is that if the stuff didn’t exist, these guys wouldn’t have anyhthing to satirize.

I could potentially see the argument that Chappelles skits furthered stereotypes, but I don’t think thats the case, what is more likely is that it made people feel more comfortable to say what they really feel, because they’ve seen it on TV in a funny context, this is either a good or bad thing depending on your viewpoint, do you want “silent racism” or do you want to know how people really feel?

I think its woefully naive to think that non-blacks can watch movies like SoulPlane, White Chicks, Little Man, Waist Deep etc etc, watch tv like virtually *anything* on BET, UPN, can listen to virtually any hiphop/rap video, look at the images that all the sports players portray, the ballin, the bling, the elevation of the status of “the pimp” and somehow not be affected by stereotypes, Yet watching chappelles show or boondocks could suddenly enlighten them or convince them to accept stereotypes and become racist.

Plus, the argument that Chappelles Show / Boondocks is somehow the real problem of black america completely and utterly falls to pieces when you put this into a world context.

Get a skype account, call some random people in Asia and Europe and ask their opinion of black people, or even just what images they see of blacks, 99% they’re going to point to hiphop and movies over tv shows like chappeles / boondocks.

Again, the fact that Chappelle walked away from teh show is tangible proof that he thought that initially he was doing something that was helping people, and once he realized things weren’t being received the way he wanted, he had to leave. If you were concerned about only money, or only being a self-hating black, then he would have acted like 90% of our black entertainers and kept “makin’ that cheddar”.

This issue is infinitely more complex, we haven’t even touched on the media outlets that push a certain product ,or the consumers who’d rather listen to Jaime Foxx then Tavis Smiley / Ed Gordon, but thats a whole other ball of wax.

My main point is that if all these people who are attacking the satirists took that energy and attacked what they were satirizing, I think

a) Chappelle and MacGruder would be out of jobs
b) We’d be in a better position overall as a people

Posted 19 Jul 2006 at 4:03 pm ¶
bertie wrote:

To piggy back on Merq–the show has clearly devolved into coonery and is simply not that funny. I honestly believe that part of Dave’s abrupt departure was fueled by his not having anything more to say (at least at that moment in time) on race and the pressure for him to continue to talk about race in his humor.

I think the Pixie skit emobodies this perfectly–the original premise is the illogical discomfort minorities feel in doing something normal (such as eating chicken) all because they’ve internalized some stereotype placed on them by others. I wasn’t offended by the black pixie because I think his over the top nature represents the absurdity of these internalized stereotypes. Kind of like an anorexic who weighs 90 pounds but sees somebody fat in the mirror…the character in the skit would mis-view himself as a “super coon” just because he did something as normal as eating chicken on a plane with white folks. Being a black man who has turned down watermelon in public spaces–I understand the joke completely (pixie and all).

But by the time Dave gets to the hispanic, asian, and white pixies he’s run out of insight–but because the skit is about race he is forced to just rehashes stereotypes in an attempt to “stay on topic.” This is what’s happening to the show in general in my opinion. Because its been hyped as show about race–he has to keep the race references going even though he has nothing to say. So we get a bunch of half-assed incomplete thoughts on race which merely bring up stereotypes and then does nothing with them. By the way, the funniest skit so far is the one that has nothing to do with race–the cribs parody.

Posted 19 Jul 2006 at 4:05 pm ¶
eric wrote:

Just out of curiosity bertie

Would you consider most hiphop / movies / tv images of blacks on tv as cooning at this point?

I’m actually inclined to agree with most of your last post, but I just think that what he’s satirizing is straight cooning for coonings sake, as opposed to purposely hyper-cooning to prove the point of how much coonery actually exists.

At the end of the day, what is the difference between Jay-Z, 50 Cent, or the Wayans Bros in Little Man, vs. cooning actors of the past in the sense that they all played into stereotypes “for that money”.

Posted 19 Jul 2006 at 4:23 pm ¶
bertie wrote:

Eric–no I don’t believe that most hip-hop/movies etc images of blacks are cooning. Most may be negative–but not necessarily cooning. Although 50 Cents or Jay-z’s lyrics/videos/imagery etc are thuggish, violent, mysoginistic, hyper-sexual, hedonistic, amoral, etc–I don’t consider it coonery/buffonery. (nor do I consider it coonery when De Niro, Pacino or Gandolfini present the same images). Neither 50 or Jigga presents himself (or blacks in general) as idiots or clowns or or lackeys or the butt of the joke or as individuals with lowered intelligence for the entertainment of whites. Thats cooning to me.

Even the Wayans to me get unfairly judged (although they are not my cup of tea). Its true they make stupid comedies with idiots as main characters–but so does Jim Carrey, Will Farrell, Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Vince Vauhgn, etc. The Wayan’s characters do not behave as idiots because they’re black–they act like idiots because they’re characters are idiots–and usually there are non-idiot black characters thrown in there for balance I suppose.

But some of Dave’s skits revel in the coonish stereotype’s with no attempt to disect or discredit them. And this is not a new phenomena–I just think its gotten more prevelant as the show goes on. For example, an early skit was based on blacks getting reparations–and the whole “joke” was that blacks would spend their reparation checks on rims, booze, and chicken. Now if Dave’s intent was to posit that giving blacks cash as a reparation for what slaves suffered is inadequate since we are still dealing with institutionalized effects of slavery to this day and cash in hand will not change the system–then it wasn’t very clear. It looked more like a skit version of soulplane–ie, look at how dumb/limited black folks are, you give them money and because they’re black, they’ll spend it all on beer and chicken. Now thats cooning to me.

Posted 19 Jul 2006 at 6:19 pm ¶
brad wrote:

I have to agree with Bertie and Eric. I don’t think it’s fair to vilify Chappelle in general but he does bear responsibility for not understanding his audience and how his attempt at satire could be read as a minstrel act. Furthermore, I do, however, believe that 50 Cent and other gangsta rappers are sellouts who make a buck by trafficking in racial stereotypes. After a certain point, the young kid from the wrong side of the tracks becomes a millionaire who understands his market and what sells well to it.

For instance, Busta Rhymes has a new song called “I Love My Bitch.” How gross is that? Rhymes is pushing 40 and knows right from wrong, but here he is making it seem perfectly natural to refer to women as bitches.

I’m not dismissing the sexist portrayal in predominately white Rock videos. However, white women have not had the overwhelming association with prostitution as women of color (ho’s, geishas, Suzy Wong, etc.) have.

Posted 19 Jul 2006 at 6:41 pm ¶
eric wrote:

Wow… theres not much I can really say to that

I think we just have a wildly different idea of what cooning is, and also, which kind of images and actions will ultimately have a more detrimental effect to how blacks view themselves, as well as how other see blacks in general.

Posted 19 Jul 2006 at 6:48 pm ¶
Bryce wrote:

By airing these “Lost” episodes, Comedy Central is merely trying to recoup what they can from this $$$$ franchise. Did Chappelle not have the option to re-shoot or re-write this sketch after he became aware of it’s more disturbing aspects? (I did not read the Time article). Had he not walked out on the show, couldn’t he have buried this sketch (and any others he was dissatisfied with) and filmed replacements? Or aired it, but then told the story of the white guy laughing in the wrong places to his audience, rather than Time magazine. How much creative freedom did he lose?

Also, I’m not willing to overlook the satirical elements of this sketch. I think the premise had potential, but it needed to be ironed out a bit more, and perhaps ultimately squashed if they couldn’t push the point across. Chappelle left the show and in a sense we’ve been left with a sketch the artist no longer (or never) stands behind. Nevertheless, I can’t really point the finger at Comedy Central for making the call to air it after all this time, only for not coddling their star.

p.s., I like a lot of the recent discussion from bertie, though I think these Lost episodes are still pretty funny. It’s almost like “when keeping it real goes wrong” – I mean, if he sucked it up and stuck with the show he’d right now be in a position to negotiate his next contract (seasons 5 and beyond) and could probably get most of his demands met (i.e., money for charity, creative, schedule). Sigh…

Posted 19 Jul 2006 at 6:55 pm ¶
bertie wrote:

well we have different views on whats coonery–but I made no judgments on what images are more or less harmful for blacks. I never said and hope I am not misunderstood to mean that Dave Chappelle is more harmful than 50 Cent–I’m just arguing that Dave Chappelle’s brand of entertaiment is more coonery than 50’s. Of course 50 may be more harmful in other ways. This post was about Dave (and not 50/Jay-z etc) so my criticism was focused on Chappelle.

Posted 19 Jul 2006 at 7:52 pm ¶
eric wrote:

bertie,

Yeah, I totally understand, I wasn’t insinuating that either,

Posted 19 Jul 2006 at 8:05 pm ¶
Merq wrote:

Bertie.

Rock on, brotha.

Posted 19 Jul 2006 at 11:41 pm ¶
Merq wrote:

by the way, eric:

I must add that I’m not vilifying Chappelle. Rather, I’m on his side (now that he’s abandoned the show). And I’ll go go one step further than Bertie, and say that the Wayanses are going to Black Hell right along with McGruder and 50 Cent. I cringe every time I walk by a “Lil’ Man” promo poster… and Damon’s bright marketing idea to patent the word “nigga” for a “Nigga Wear” clothing line? Come the hell on.

I think the problem is that you’re seeing it as an EITHER/OR situation. I say BOTH sides (hip-hop/”nigga movies” and “satirists”) are incredibly destructive to black progress.

When Chappelle goes on Oprah and Inside the Actors Studio, explaining that blacks have to consciously switch to “white-speak” in order to function in a boardroom, it affects every single black professional striving to be taken seriously in a corporate workplace in America.

Every time Chappelle explains that black people are irresistibly drawn to only the drums in a song, every black rock artist (like, most commonly, Lenny Kravitz) and guitar-lover (like me) is forced to explain even more why he has rock music on his iPod.

When Aaron McGruder describes public (violent or near-violent) pissing contests as “nigga moments,” a greater burden is then placed on any black man caught in a black-white confrontation to prove he isn’t simply a savage predator incapable of non-violent methods of conflict resolution.

I hope you get what I’m trying to say now.

Posted 20 Jul 2006 at 12:05 am ¶
eric wrote:

Yeah Merq,

I can co-sign with most of what you say, in truth there are major aspects of both Chappelle and MacGruders comedy that I have issue with.

I personally don’t see it as either / or, but thats along the lines of what pisses me off about this situation. The backlash of people who are against the satirists but NOT the object of the satire is what I’m having problems with. They’re playing the “OR” game, when they should at the very least be playing the “BOTH” game.

Chappelles/MacGruders comedy is born out of 50 cent, Jay-Z, Wayans Bros, etc, so when people can’t make that connection, it deeply worries me. Chappelle and MacGrudes are satirists, they’re depicting “hyper-black” and “hyper-racist” behavior to prove the point. If the satire is lost on the audience then I agree, that needs to be addressed.

I’m 100% sure you understand this, and it was clear to me as well that when Chappelles sets up the skit by using a guy in blackface, shuckin n jivin, the goal is to get the audience to say wow, thats over the top… then later in the skit he cuts to the Yin Yang Twinz in their “top cooning” moments, and again, this little blackface character we thought was over the top and reprehensible says “Even, *I’m* embarrased.

While that gets a laugh, its also a deeply subversive and harsh critique on the Yin Yang Twinz and other hiphop artists who subscribe to that behavior.

In actuality, I think you’re closer to my viewpoint then Berties, as the major crux of the issue is making people who are against the satirists stand up to what is being satirized as well. Or stated another way, I can understand and accept your viewpoint, whereas I can accept berties, but am incapable of understanding it.

PS, I’m right there with you on “explaining” whats one ones iPod. Jazz, Neo-Soul, R&B, Spoken Word, House, Brasilian Lounge, (the latter two of which I DJ) simply aren’t as “black male” as they used to be.

Posted 20 Jul 2006 at 8:30 am ¶
bertie wrote:

Eric: I’m 100% sure you understand this, and it was clear to me as well that when Chappelles sets up the skit by using a guy in blackface, shuckin n jivin, the goal is to get the audience to say wow, thats over the top… then later in the skit he cuts to the Yin Yang Twinz in their “top cooning” moments, and again, this little blackface character we thought was over the top and reprehensible says “Even, *I’m* embarrased

I agree with this 100% and thats why the pixie itself (black-face and all) did not bother me. But the hispanic, asian and white pixies bothered me because the skit lost focus during those segments and just became a rehashing of stereotypes about inferiority–which to me is cooning.

I think McGruder and Chappelle are vastly different. Whether you agree with McGruder or not, his views on the race issues he tackles are crystal clear and usually explicitly expressed by the older brother. And McGruder tends to focus on intra-racial issues rather than problems between races. Chappelle, in my opinion, is much more ambigous–some of his skits seem to just reference stereotypes without comment/criticism in an effort to get a quick laugh. I agree that McGruders comedy is born of and often a direct commentary on the Jay-z, ying-yangs and 50 Cents of the world–I’m just not so sure Dave’s comedy is. Look at the Crack head character…whats social critique is Dave making with that character? Or is it just a buffonish character based on stereotypes of blacks and crack cocaine.

Posted 20 Jul 2006 at 9:11 am ¶
eric wrote:

bertie,

OK, I’m definitely understanding your point better.

The only thing I’d say about the including hispanic/asian/white pixies is that, if Dave does skits only focusing on blacks, people complain that “he hates black people” “he’s a self-hating black” etc, so maybe in including the rest of the stereotypes he was trying to show he’s not being biased towards blacks. I’m not defending it, just offering a viewpoint as to why it may have been done that way.

Regarding Chappelles “unfocusedness”, I COMPLETELY agree, especially regarding the crack character, those skits are rarely funny to me. I know as a youth Dave grew up in DC, then moved to Ohio (or somewhere like that), and when he came back to DC, crack had taken over, so it may be born out of his fascination as a kid as to what all that was about. Again, not defending it, but just trying to look at where he may have been coming from.

I think both of you are what I’d consider “progressive blacks”, and as such know all of this stuff is always a slippery slope, trying to balance education without boring the people you’re trying to talk to.

For example, News and Notes with Ed Gordon, the Tavis Smiley radio show, and the “State of Black America” forums that are on BFC (Black Family Channel) all address these topics of coonery, buffonery and “where is black america headed”, but the problem is that noone watches them. Most people I talk to (including blacks) just tell me they think its too boring to watch.

(IMO) Things like Boondocks and Chappelles show try and make it “fun” to watch the show, and also try and interdisperse messages where they can. I agree, Boondocks is much more targeted, Chappelles shows tend to be like “Poop skit”, “Sex skit”, “Race skit with no meaning”, “Race Skit with a message”, “repeat”. Now these programs are widely watched (in America) but because they’re too over the top, or maybe cloud the issue in some ways, its criticized as well.

I often wonder what the response to Chappelles show would have been if it didn’t take off in terms of non-blacks watching it, and it was just some show on BET that onlhy black people watched…

Personally, I wish the approach we could take would be in forms of serious discussions and debates, and just getting peoples feelings out htere along with proper education, but sadly, and both of you have probably seen this, people just don’t WANT that for whatever reason.

I thnk there are a number of us out htere who are struggling to figure out whats the right formula to both educate people, and keep people entertained enough that they’ll actually watch/listen/think about these issues.

If we look back into our recent history we see that Dr. MLK Jr was considered too passive by some, and Malcolm X was consider too radical by others, and over their lifetimes they each drifted towards the middle.

Hopefully our more aggressive voices likw MacGruder and Chappelle (who seems to have already learned his lesson) will relax, and some of our more passive voices could step it up a bit.

Posted 20 Jul 2006 at 10:48 am ¶
Gandalf Mantooth wrote:

I don’t agree. Too difficult to compare stand-up and a comic strip and make value judgements of one vis a vis the other. There’s an entirely different aim in stand-up, especially that derived from the history of African American live performances. Dave’s crackhead is a descendant of Mudbone. He doesn’t spend time allowing the crackhead to tell his story in the way Pryor allowed Mudbone to speak for himself and thus comment on society. Dave’s a bit more Jerry Lewis in him, manic, physical, outsized humor, and more in line with modern comics like Martin Lawrence.

A strip of course requires reading, one can mull over what is going on, allowing for some reflection.

Funny thing about the Wayans, though. I heard the younger brothers say that they don’t spend their money on cars. They want to hear rappers rap about bonds and stock portfolios instead of cars and platinum. That suggests a willful cynicism in their comedy (we know what makes you all laugh and we will coon as long as we’re paid well) or that they are just smarter than we give them credit for.

Posted 20 Jul 2006 at 1:22 pm ¶
Jenn wrote:

Thanks for the links, and especially the discussion which I found very refreshing to see people disagree on reasoned analysis of the skit. Given how the whole topic of this sketch has flown around the internet, I appreciated seeing you guys disagree and do so graciously.

I think that many aspects of hip-hop is also cooning — especially because it is done by perpetuating stereotypes to entertain the White masses. That being said, I think there is a fine but important line between villifying Chappelle and holding him accountable for the behemoth he has created.

It would be impossible, logically, to villify Chappelle. In the Time article cited above, Chappelle publicly recognizes the racism of the racial pixie sketch, so this is coming straight from the creator’s mouth. He said on Anderson Cooper 360 that he would have preferred if nobody watched the sketches on air; he found them THAT offensive.

We couldn’t villify Chappelle because he essentially agrees with everyone who condemns the sketches. But what we can and should do is hold him accountable for his mistakes and recognize that what he helped create was wrong. Only by starting a dialogue countering the implicit “okay” broadcast by Comedy Central will Chappelle’s wishes truly be realized.

He has lambasted himself over the sketches. I don’t think it’s out of line to agree with him that he was wrong.

Posted 20 Jul 2006 at 4:56 pm ¶
Michelle Benson wrote:

You all are just regergitating what you have read. You were pre-warned about the sckecth and you pre-judged. The show jumped the shark last season actually. But Dave Chappel is cool. He is not responsible for race relations any more than Oprha Winfrey is responbile for single handedly saving the lives of black people in Africa. He’s a comedian. He makes me laugh. When can we watch comedy that is about middle class and hgiher end living and shopping and existing, when that becomes our world. The majority of us must be able to relate. I went to college in both France and Japan. I speak both French and Jap and am an accountant. But I think Tyrone sckecth is funny as hell. Im from Brooklyk and tyrone is my dad.

Relax its just comedy.

Be appaulded at Al Shaprton’s show. He on there butchering verbs and carrying on with all that mis information and rhyming ans shit and he’s not trying to be funny.
Take up a new cause guys

Posted 23 Jul 2006 at 9:23 pm ¶
Gandalf Mantooth wrote:

At leas he aint on ther mis pellin ans shit

Posted 25 Jul 2006 at 9:52 am ¶
Merq wrote:

HAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH.

Killer, Gandalf!

Posted 25 Jul 2006 at 6:55 pm ¶