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…

Killer, Gandalf!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :)