“Comedy”

Warning: This is not a nice post. These are my unfiltered thoughts about someone I truly cannot stand exhibiting behavior that I genuinely detest. Read at your own risk.

—

In Chris Rock’s comedy special “Bigger and Blacker” he talks about the complicated relationship black Americans have with the United States. He said, “If you’re black, America’s like the Uncle who paid your way through college…but molested you.”

I would say that black people share a similar relationship with comedian Bill Cosby. Cosby, a man who’s as known for his contributions to the black college fund as he is for making millions of people laugh for most of the 70s, 80s, and 90s, has repeatedly gone on unintelligible and often racist rants about black people that finally stretched my admiration of him until it snapped.

I have absolutely no tolerance for people, especially older ones, who promote stereotypes and use anecdotal evidence over facts under the guise of “helping people.” They’re just like all those guys who write blog posts about how women are too fat, but they say they don’t care about how we look, they’re just worried about our health.

10 Years of Ignoring Bill Cosby’s Entire Existence Comes to A Screeching Halt

For the past 10 years, I’ve ignored Bill Cosby as much as possible. He’s on Charlie Rose? I won’t watch that night. Someone’s tweeting about him? I’ll mute them. He’s speaking at commencement when I graduate from Temple. Fine, I’ll focus on my big day.

But yesterday my streak was unceremoniously broken!

According to various twitter timelines, Cosby spoke at the National Action Network Keepers of the Dream Banquet. I refer to such events as BPOs–Bougie Pontification Opportunities. Apparently, he used his speech, again, to touch on one of his favorite subjects–Welfare Queens. I saw a tweet that quoted Cosby as saying something to the effect of  ”you got mothers who are having more babies just to get an extra $270 a month.”  I flew into a rage.

To be clear, I wasn’t at the banquet. I didn’t hear, nor do I need to hear, the complete content of Cosby’s speech. Why? Because the fact that Cosby thinks that in midst of recession, with 14 million people unemployed, many of whom are black and haven’t worked since the recession began, that welfare abuse is worth mentioning PERIOD shows you the degree of delusion he operates under. That alone is enough to make me write him off forever.

Not that I hadn’t already written him off.

Cause I had.

In 2005, a woman (who worked at me and Cosby’s alma mater Temple University) accused him of rape. Cosby settled the case when 10 other women retained legal counsel and promised to testify against him in court. Of course, that wasn’t the first time Cosby was accused of sexually assaulting a woman. Fortunately for Cosby, he receives the benefit of the doubt, a luxury he does not provide poor African American women when he’s out on the speaking trail.

For someone who has been allegedly falsely accused of being a rapist, Cosby sure has little sympathy for black men who may find themselves in precarious positions for whatever reason. And absolutely no empathy for the the 18% of black women, many of whom are poor and powerless, who will experience rape in their lifetime. It’s that lack of empathy that makes him so utterly and completely repulsive.

Cosby’s Often Hypocritical Amen Crowd

I’m also frustrated by the level of education and access to information afforded to him that deliberately rebuffs in order to continue to seek praise by what I call the “Amen” crowd.

The “Amen Crowd” doesn’t need facts, figures, or evidence to agree with something. All you have to do is repeat tired trite stereotypes about black people–preferably ones developed and established by the late fear monger and alzheimer sufferer Ronald Reagan–and stand there while they hoot and holler and co-sign. Quite frankly, it’s embarrassing. But it explains why black people have been unable to repair the damage done to the image of blacks by those like Cosby who take behavior exhibited by few and strut across the media attributing that behavior to the many.

You may be familiar with the White version of the Amen crowd. They had the worse week ever this week when they found out Glenn Beck would be off the air soon.

The “Amen” condition results in an irresistible urge to applaud when some generalizing self-righteous deliberately uninformed geriatric creeper like Cosby condemns certain behaviors such as receiving government assistance, having multiple children with multiple fathers, or overspending on jewelry, cars and rims. Ameners get to denigrate others’ choices while they conveniently forget about the pell grant they got in college, the secret abortion they had when they got pregnant by their last boyfriend before they got married and got pregnant a second time, and the house they’re living in that they can’t really afford and might have to enter into short sale.

But hey, as long as it’s a jumbo house loan with an adjustable rate and not a gold chain, no harm no foul! I’m amazed at how some people believe that as long as they aren’t using Food Stamps they’re not a part of America’s social problems.

Intellectual Laziness and Complete Lack of Effort

At first I wanted to write this post because I get so angry when the media covers empty words as though something profound has been communicated, and I assume that whatever is written about Cosby’s vapid statements at this latest BPO will be treated with a seriousness they do not warrant. But when I thought about Cosby’s implication that there is a problem in the black community with general laziness and lack of effort, I found that I couldn’t disagree.

Intellectual laziness and a lack of effort toward challenging common beliefs is a problem across America with all races and both genders. It’s the reason the government may be headed toward a shut down. It’s the reason that stereotypes, half truths, and whole untruths are allowed to fester and spread. And it’s also the reason that organizations continue to ask Cosby to speak to anything unrelated to entertainment that requires a thoughtful response.

This post serves only to communicate why I **strongly dislike Cosby. If you want facts about why his statements are so offensive, there’s a whole google out there for the intellectually curious. I encourage you to indulge. A great many people have broken down the error of Cosby’s ways better than I could especially since I have a heavy distaste for debating concepts I believe are excruciatingly obvious.

**my dad told me to always say you “strongly dislike” someone instead of saying you”hate” them. To respect my dad I used his preferred terminology but I’m pretty sure my feelings for Cosby are consistent with that of hate.

It’s true that I am a perennial party pooper, a consistent contrarian, a rainer on parades, if you will. There’s no reason for me to stop now.

Let me start by saying I’ve never seen Rick Sanchez’s show. In fact, I’d never heard of him until he was fired. I don’t watch much TV and I sure don’t watch cable news. What I’ve heard thus far is that Sanchez is a moron and his show is dumb.

But clearly he wasn’t fired for that reason. He was fired because…because…umm…well…what happened was he…

Right.

I read Sanchez statements and I interpreted them thusly: I am a Latino man and I believe I have suffered institutionalized racism at the hands of white liberals–many of whom are Jewish people. Jewish people are powerful within the entertainment industry and Jon Stewart is one of those people. I think that Stewart and some other people of his ilk look down on me.

I have to assume that CNN and others assumed Sanchez said something he didn’t. I could guess what that something was (insert anti-semetic implications here) but what does it matter? The fact is Sanchez didn’t say anything wrong and his firing sends a confusing message.

Not only can you be fired and ridiculed for what you say, you can be fired and ridiculed for what we think you might have possibly been alluding to vaguely in your comments. For the record, THAT’S BULLSHIT.

Jon Stewart’s childish mocking of someone who was fired for something they didn’t say rubs me the wrong way. Minorities struggle with institutionalized racism on a daily basis, and Sanchez’s comments, however impolitic or unwelcome, were a valid representation of what many routinely face. Hearing Stewart and many in the liberal contingent act as though Sanchez committed a grave offense while ignoring the fact that he clearly relayed a painful past and present experience shows two things: 1.  How off limits discussions about racial bias are–even from people who have their own platform from which to speak and 2. How completely out of touch some white people are with how minorities navigate this world.

Interesting that even after achieving the one thing that most journalists want—his own television show–Sanchez was still filled with enough resentment (certainly driven in part by Stewart’s mocking) that he mentioned racial inequity on air in a personal sense, something that almost never happens.  And now we know why it almost never happens.

Stewart gets to mock Sanchez’s “meltdown” while ignoring the crux of his point. Privilege anyone? This is the very thing that Sanchez was talking about. It’s difficult to know that no matter how much you accomplish there are certain people who will never respect you simply because you’re (insert disadvantage here), and then, after disrespecting you they can take you down, and then kick you while you’re down. Stewart may not see himself as one of those people, he may not think that his disdain for Sanchez is racially motivated–and perhaps it’s not. But that doesn’t make Sanchez’s experiences any less valid or Stewart’s na na na boo boo’ing any more appealing.

I’ve said it many times before, but Christopher Hitchens is one of my favorite thinkers and has heavily influenced my own work. I enjoyed reading his thoughts on the Sanchez situation in Slate magazine and agreed with his characterization of Sanchez’s comments as “uncontroversial.” Hitchens also suggests that Stewart lead a charge for Sanchez to be reinstated, and I think that would be the mature thing to do.

But Stewart doesn’t seem to be interested in approaching this subject maturely. And yeah, it kinda pisses me off.

Essence Magazine’s recent hire of a white fashion director is the latest in a series of newsworthy topics about race. From the Shirley Sherrod debacle to Senator Jim Webb’s Wall Street Journal article advocating for the elimination of affirmative action programs, America is struggling to talk about race constructively.  Essence’s hiring of Elliana Placas, who has been working at the magazine for the last 6 months, reignites the conversation about the role of race in hiring practices and the expectation that black owned or targeted businesses will act as equalizers.

I’ve read a few differing opinions on Essence Magazine‘s decision, and I am sensitive to the fact that people support and oppose the decision for a variety of historical, social, personal, and sentimental reasons. I think Mark Anthony Neal does a great job of capturing those issues here. The most prominent argument in support of Ms. Placas’s hiring has been the magazine’s own argument that essentially implies that companies should pick the “best person for the job” and that race shouldn’t be a determining factor. While I’m not surprised to hear such an argument in a country like America that fancies itself a meritocracy, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that these matters aren’t quite that simple.

America has always struggled issues of inequality. We’ve made much progress but in many cases the consequences of remaining bias is hidden behind the achievements of a relative few. We all carry the burden of reconciling this dynamic; however, black-owned or targeted businesses bear a special responsibility to be cognitive of these issues. Before I go further, I want to note that it’s important to understand that these types of considerations aren’t limited to racial minorities.

For example, weeks ago the web publication Jezebel posted an article about sexism on the set of the Daily Show. The article included first hand accounts from women who’d worked on the show stating that it’s hard for women to be hired on the show, harder for them to keep the job, and near impossible to get an on-air role. The article was met with criticism most notably from the 39 or 40 women who work on the show.  The Daily Show women wrote a letter defending the show and its host Jon Stewart with the crux of the point being that the show is hard for everyone, comedy is a rough business, and still, women make up 40% of the show’s staff.

The most poignant response to the Daily Show story came from the show’s co-creator Madeline Smithberg who pointed out that the comedy industry is so biased against women that a disproportionate amount of women are already eliminated from the pool before they could even gain the necessary experience to be hired on such a show. The women’s present experience may not be sexist, but sexism has already colored the circumstances.

I think what many women are looking for, and deserve, is some sort of equalizer but there’s none in place.  I think this point is relevant to Essence as well. The fashion industry is harder for blacks than whites to navigate.  Though Essence may have chosen the “best candidate for the job,” by basing its decision on skill alone the magazine contributes to the overarching problem (or at least maintains the status quo) by refusing to play an equalizing role. The fact that a white woman is considered to be the best qualified fashion director for a fashion magazine geared toward black women says more about the makeup of the pool of candidates and the magazine’s agenda than it does about Ms. Placas’s relative skill.

In the whole of America there are great many factions of people (mostly white men due to their historical advantage) that work feverishly to keep their associates protected and to increase the chances that they can create opportunities for each other in the future.  For black owned or targeted businesses to choose not to employ some targeted favoritism to augment their largely meritocratic practices is perplexing. By virtue, we expect black businesses to look beyond the present and consider both the historical implications of their hiring decisions as well as the potential outcome.

In addition to considering the present benefits of hiring Ms. Placas, Essence should also consider the future result e.g. whether or not hiring a white woman would result in more or less opportunities for black women going forward.  I think a strong argument could be made that not only does Ms. Placas’s hiring take an opportunity away from a black woman in the present, but she is probably also less likely than a black fashion director to use Essence as stepping stone to later create more opportunities for black women. But as Danielle Belton points out over at the Black Snob, Essence Magazine is no longer black-owned and doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Still, a black-focused fashion magazine’s decision to install a white person as its fashion director is both symptomatic and consequential.