Edit case study 2

Surname | 8

Racial and Gender Humor-A Case Study on the Firing of Don Imus

Ethics of gender and race has become a crucial matter for the government of the United States. The government has always struggled to foster unity amongst its people, but the main cause of division in the nation is racism and gender disparity. There exist two major categories of races; the black and the white and two genders which are male and female even though it is not a big issue. Gender stereotypes are widely accepted beliefs about a particular gender that are not necessarily true and cannot be proven to be facts. The problem arises whereby there is a group claiming to “fight for the rights” of one gender; an example is feminists; who "fight for the rights" of the female sex. The media has a significant part in the propagating of these problems; our case study is about a radio presenter going by the name Don Imus who was fired on the claim that he had offended people based on their race and gender of which he thought to be a sense of humor. Therefore it is important that gender and racial humor be reined in the media houses. Even though racial jokes are used to convey different messages, it could be with the aim of merely teasing someone, and furthermore, it has played a significant role trying to bring good relations between the races.

Gender and racial humor may not be used with any evil intention, but there are many factors to consider while using racial humor. It would begin with understanding the audience to which the message is being conveyed. As for the case of Imus, it may be that his intention was never wrong. The audience in his case was comprised of both black and white people, for white people this was humorous, but on the other hand to the dark race, it may have sounded like a mockery. Perhaps also such jokes would be convenient for smaller circles like friends, who may understand better that the jokes did not mean anything personal. The larger the population, the higher the number of people who are likely to misinterpret the message, therefore Imus’ message was conveyed to the wrong audience. If the audience were maybe a comedy show, it would have been a different matter. On the radio, things are taken to be serious at times, depending on the setting of a subject upon which to joke.

In comparison to Andrew Dice Clay, Imus could be said to be a little more of racist than sexist, Andrew Dice was more a sexist. Imus thought he would offend only a single race but his comments disrespected all women in general and not just a single race. Andrew often used vulgar language when referring to the opposite sex and most of his jokes seemed to be disrespectful to the female sex. For Andrew, it was his audience that gave him the urge to speak in such a manner, because he thought he was entertaining them but he did not look at things from a wider point of view. Even though Imus still possesses both traits in a way, because the people he offended were ladies by calling them "nappy-headed hos."

David Chappelle was a comedian, and in his shows, he dwelt majorly on racism, and he often used racial rumor. His jokes were so abominable that an ordinary American would not manage to think as he thought or even to say what he used to say. At one point his co-writer had confessed that Chappelle knew very well that his content was not funny, but instead, it was more of racism. The only difference between Dave and other comedians using racial humor is that he could be entertained because he was black therefore the black race did not take anything he said personally. To the white race, it meant something else and also gave them an opportunity to think that they agree with what is said about them. In the real sense, the aim of David Chappelle was to bring out the picture of how ridiculous racism is and how unreasonable it is to judge someone by their color. Instead of people looking into his intentions they focused on how funny his jokes were and lost grip of his message. The people who enjoy such shows are those already have a stereotypic way of thinking, thus to them; it appears that their ideas are being supported.

As for Carlos Mencia, he was a comedian who was against what was termed as political correctness. He was similar to Imus in a sense that he advocated for the white to be allowed to make racial jokes so that it may not happen as it happened to Imus. Mencia believed that it was not fair since some white people had talents of telling racial jokes and this denied them a chance to showcase their talent, he was, therefore, advocating for the rights of the white race (Sheridan, Patricia (2007)). He termed this political correctness as color-blind racism. To him, jokes are just meant to make people laugh and not to offend anyone. Carlos never saw anything wrong in making jokes; he thought this political correctness as a form of racial inequality.

From the comparison of the four comedians that use racial and gender humor we can see clearly that the society is diverse in how individuals take the issue of racial and gender humor, there can never be a moment that there will be a consensus on this matter. The media is at the epicenter of all the issues revolving around racial and gender humor. About to racial humor, Gordon sticks his mind to the idea that racial humor is a useful tool for passing the information on the oppression of the black race. He says that it is a way of creating social justice where both the races are involved together. He advocated for the minority race using the media to counter the oppressiveness of the majority race. Color-blind racism is the main way Americans interpret race and racial issues. In this perspective, racism no longer thrives this can be attributed to the gains of the Civil Rights period and all the remaining racial inequality is a result of individual character traits (Bonilla-Silva 2003, 2001; Forman 2006; Gallagher 2003).

In the case of Imus, it could have been that he only wanted to make a joke out of what he was trying to say, but Sharpton made things to appear more of personal when he added more offensive language to what Don had said. Otherwise, the Rutgers ladies would not have taken it as seriously as they did. Sharpton was only in a good position to take out of context the comments of Don; such kind could be the ones to put the blame. The two had different audiences, and the last thing Don would expect is for his comments to reach the unintended audience. With the current trends in matters of social life, there are black Americans who cannot consent to Sharpton's actions. Many Americans have embraced a change of attitude and put racial equality on the forefront, and racial background cannot be a reason to conceal wrongs. On the other hand, Imus is at fault because he had not familiarized himself with the black audience and he should have been cautious before making such sensitive jokes about them.

The European Center for Antiziganism Research criticized the movie Borat significantly and even filed a complaint because the film incited violence against an ethnic group (The Romani). Due to this reason, 20th Century Fox removed the scenes involving the Romani people. The incident on Borat can be compared to the situation of Imus; the humor Imus made could take two directions. It could be good in that; it can be used as a way of doing away with social differences since if the two groups could make jokes on one another without having to put up a fight, then it would bring harmony. On the other hand, it would be bad because the groups involved have no ground on which they can have room for such kind of humor and thus it would bring strife.

Researches done by psychology experts have proved beyond reasonable doubt that racial humor has far reaching effects in peoples' minds regardless of how harmless they may seem. It would be better to rein the use of these racial and gender humor than to wait for its far-reaching consequences. It would be advisable to encourage people in the media houses to regulate making racial humor in the case whereby they are not familiar with the particular race in question. The other regulation to be put in place is the encouraging of the white to avoid as much making the jokes appear as personal. As in the case of Imus, it may have been that his intentions were not bad, but Sharpton triggered a much more negative perspective of the joke Imus made.

Sources:

Pizek, Jeff. “Rabble-rouser Carlos Mencia’s comedy pulls no punches.” Chicago Daily Herald, 9 November 2007.

Sheridan, Patricia. “Patricia Sheridan’s Breakfast with Carlos Mencia.” Pittsburg Post-Gazette,6 August 2007.

Lewis, Amanda E. 2004. "What Group? Studying Whites and Whiteness in the Era of Color-Blindness." Sociological Theory22:623-646.

Forman, Tyrone A. 2006. “Color-Blind Racism and Racial Indifference: The Role of Racial Apathy in Facilitating Enduring Inequalities.” Pp. 43-66 in The Changing Terrain of Race and Ethnicity. M. Krysan and A. E. Lewis. New York, Russell Sage Foundation.

Chappelle, Dave. Interview by James Lipton. Inside the Actor’s Studio. Bravo Company, 12 February 2006