Tangotiger Blog

As Kang’s article makes clear, there was no mistake about Colbert’s tweet. The issue raised by Suey Park is that Asian Americans are pretty much the only major ethnic group in the US that a Comedian like Colbert would feel comfortable referencing in a joke like that. I don’t think that point is up for debate - I had intentionally tried to avoid reading about this controversy until it appeared here, and yet just like Kang I knew that the joke involved Asian Americans, because no other group is “safe” to target. It’s a dynamic that is getting pretty old.

The assumption by Deadspin, Colbert and everyone else that Park “didn’t get it” shows that they are the ones who don’t get it.

You must have missed the recent skit that Colbert had referening a study that says that people perceive race differently, based on circumstances.  And in that skit, he satirized the issue of black people among other groups.

I assume you are talking about this one?

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/p8fj8f/black-history-month—-stereotypes—-racial-identity

I heard some references to a study and some jokes about that study, but I certainly didn’t hear any jokes involving slurs or quasi-slurs.

If someone can find a joke in which Colbert refers to a non-Asian, non-White ethnic group using a slur or overtly offensive term I will concede that I am wrong.

You are accepting that a satirist can joke about stereotypes.

You are accepting that a satirist can use slurs to show the absurdity of those slurs.

What you are objecting to is the bias that a satirist would target a specific slur (or a specific stereotype) in order to make his point.

That’s fair enough.

***

What did you think in the movie Harold & Kumar, when the “translator” translated into “Chinese” (though it should have even been Vietnamese)?  So, that was a double-offense, treating Vietnam equivalent to China, and then using the slur as translation?

You are accepting that a satirist can joke about stereotypes.

You are accepting that a satirist can use slurs to show the absurdity of those slurs.

Actually I’m on the fence. I’m torn between the “two wrongs don’t make a right” view and the recognition that satire is a powerful tool for spurring change. I think context matters, and generally speaking I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the satirist.

What you are objecting to is the bias that a satirist would target a specific slur (or a specific stereotype) in order to make his point.

In this context, I don’t really object to the joke. I object to the dismissal of the criticism of the joke. I think a more appropriate response to #CancelColbert would be something like “I just can’t use the N-word, so Asian joke it is. Sorry.” Because IMO that is the truth of the matter - we acknowledge that some things are off-limits, and so we turn elsewhere. Instead, the response is “Oh silly people, you just didn’t get the joke. Don’t be so sensitive.”

Jokes are jokes, and even if I have strong feelings about the subtext of this one, it is still just a joke. But the reaction to the reaction is dismissive, paternalistic, invalidating and (IMO) reflects some ugly truths. If you substitute some different words into the original tweet I don’t think the secondary reaction would be so dismissive, and I think we have to acknowledge it and ask why that is.

***

Do you mean the scene from H&K Go To Guantanamo Bay with the Korean translator talking to Harold’s fluent-in-English parents? I can’t remember any other scene involving translation, but I haven’t seen the whole series of films.

Right, exactly that scene.

No issues at all.

I think it is important context that this scene didn’t use Asian Americans because they are a safe target, but because the main character is himself Asian American, an extreme rarity for movies not involving martial arts.

As an example of what bothers me, I present pretty much every scene involving the Asian boss in “Two Broke Girls”.

There is sometimes a fine line between “satire” which uses racial stereotypes without intending malice (we see that all the time in bad movies) and “satire” which makes fun of racism. The former can be quite offensive and the latter can possible be construed as offensive although with much less of a leg to stand on.

Colbert’s satire wasn’t executed well. But like mcbrown refers to above, the visceral reaction to #CancelColbert (which I thought was pretty meh, at best) is the bigger issue here, not just the people who are making death/rape threats to her but more so the dismissal of (supposed) white liberals to the “OK-ness” of joking like that about Asian Americans v. other racial minorities. Also, Colbert’s original “Ching Chong Ding Dong” bit was dumb and unfunny as well, so in a way he was just trying to defend that dumb and unfunny character by connecting it to the Snyder (awful) situation.

I actually am surprised to hear you so dismissive about this, Tango, since this is a rarity for you (e.g. your reaction to the Sean Avery “sloppy seconds” v. the vast majority of commenters here who brushed it off).

I don’t know where I’m being dismissive, much less “so dismissive”.

I’m just laying out scenarios and bringing up examples.

Colbert is not satire, it’s parody, often clumsy. The response to the critique of it has been condescending and defensive, borderline racist itself.

One thing I love about Colbert is that he is pretty merciless about attacking the Roman Catholic Church… while he himself is a Sunday school teacher.

He had a great line when coaching the Daily Show “correspondants”: leave your soul in the closet, and pick it up when you finish your job. 

Ideally, he simply shows no bias, going after everyone.  It’s possible that he gets lazy.  For example, I thought in the early years, when he would do his spanish-schtick, it was like you were saying, offensive and unfunny.  I don’t remember him doing that character for the longest time.

I’ve been enlightened by some of the reactions to Colbert’s piece.  I have to say that if Dan Snyder had hired someone to deflect attention from his grossly obnoxious “foundation” he couldn’ have done a better job.

#13, Haha.  Yep.  I was waiting for that.  Perfect comment!

However…
It does seem a bit “you can’t satirically make fun of us while defending another group that was made fun of just because we are easy to make fun of because we will act even worse to you in real life than you ever possibly could be to us in a parody”.

Some thought Colbert went too far beyond satire into racial insensitivity. Wasn’t my take, but I’m just another schmuck with an opinion.

But it appears it’s also possible to go too far in respect toward a minority. Mr. Uni Watch has a piece up on ESPN about Cleveland Indians fans who remove Chief Wahoo from the merchandise they wear. Apparently, the responses of those who disagree have ranged “from the absurd (‘What you did was pure communism’) to the threatening (‘If I go to a game and see defaced gear ... I WILL smack you in front of everyone’), with lots of very pointed vitriol in between. The consistent theme of these comments—often implicit, sometimes spelled out—has been, ‘If you don’t like the logo, then you’re a bad fan and don’t deserve to root for the team.’”

It amazes me how we seem incapable of politely and open-mindedly disagreeing. It’s not just Colbert’s tweet or Indians fans removing Wahoo, this trait permeates our society. What a shame.*

*Still just another schmuck with an opinion.

Forgotten link: http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10715887/uni-watch-some-fans-removing-chief-wahoo-logos-protest

One of the issues people are forgetting is that the twitter account where that line was posted was not Stephen’s account nor the show’s account.  Stephen Colbert is @Stephenathome.  The @StephenColbert account was owned by Comedy Central but was not controlled by Colbert or the show.

When you sell the rights to your likeness, like it or not, you need to own up to it. 

It’s like signing something, and then being oblivious to what you signed.  Your signature is on it, too bad.

Colbert signed over some rights to comedy central.  That’s his fault.

Yes, but I’m saying that the primary error of sending the tweet without the link to the video context was not Colbert’s fault.  It was some web editor at Comedy Central, unaffiliated with the show, who made the mistake.  As far as owning up to it, Colbert did almost an entire show about it on Monday and had the account deleted, so I would say that qualifies as owning up to it.

In reference to earlier comments, the Colbert Report is a combination of parody and satire.  It parodies Bill O’Reily most directly as well as other cable news pundit shows indirectly.  At the same time, it satirizes many individual events of the day.  In this case, Colbert satirized the owner of the Redskins who is trying to blunt criticism of the team’s racist name by starting a foundation to benefit Native Americans.  I thought his bit on the show showing how ridiculous this is was terrific.

No argument there.  The initial responsibility goes to him.  And if he’s deleted that account out-right, then great job.

https://twitter.com/michaelianblack/status/454290035739987968

Michael Ian Black

Looks like the #cancelcolbert people got their way.

***

He also followed up with:

Congratulations to Stephen Colbert the person and condolences to Stephen Colbert the character.