June 04, 2007

Amos 'n' Andy, Imus, and mascots

Don Imus in 2047:  Precedents & Presidents“Imus and Andy”: Don Imus has been known to “mimic” famous African-Americans[1] from Al Sharpton to Vernon Jordan with an over-the-top stereotypical dialect reminiscent of “Amos and Andy” fame (review). Imus grew up in an era where A & A was still an enduring American phenomenon. Amos and Andy was rooted in a long legacy of minstrel show tradition that had whites in blackface; it was a pioneer in radio broadcasting in 1928; its 30+ year run is the longest in radio broadcast history; at its peak in 1930, it spawned a movie and had ONE-THIRD of the nation tuning in on a NIGHTLY basis; and in 1951, with whites-in-blackface no longer socially acceptable, CBS introduced A & A as the first ever all-black cast on network television. The NAACP immediately protested its airing and issued its 7-point bulletin[2]. After A & A won an Emmy award in 1952, the NAACP responded by initiating a boycott of Blatz beer. By April 1953 Blatz withdrew its sponsorship and CBS announced: "The network has bowed to the change in national thinking."[3] At a time when network TV was about as racially diverse as national talk radio is today, such "change" came with a backlash. It would be 20 years before another show with an all-black cast was aired. Defenders pointed to A & A’s witty character-driven scriptwriting as the primary reasons for its popularity. Like the wit of Imus, that entertainment came as part of a “package deal”.

Today, some 40 years after its final TV episodes were removed from syndication in 1966 (1960 for radio), the vast majority of Americans agree that the "Amos and Andy" shows are unfit for radio or television. But at the time, network executives and large masses of white Americans just couldn't understand what all the hubbub was about. Even some African-American fans, saddled with the unenviable choice of an unflattering comedic depiction or no depiction at all, wanted the show to remain on the air. Despite the dialects, stereotypes, and minstrel roots, many who considered themselves fair-minded people, thought that it was just good clean fun. After all, didn’t Abbot and Costello make fun of themselves? What’s the difference? Why is the NAACP meddling with our entertainment anyway?
Comment:  Needless to say, this argument applies to Indian mascots and other forms of stereotyping. Forty years after the fact, we know recognize that the most virulent Native stereotypes were wrong. But we still defend Chief Wahoo, the Washington Redskins, and the Fighting Sioux. In another 40 years, it'll be obvious just how wrong these stereotypes were too.

7 comments:

writerfella said...

Writerfella here --
Whaddaya mean 'we,' white man"
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'

Rob said...

It's a figure of speech, genius. Didn't you learn about such things in your writing education?

writerfella said...

Writerfella here --
No, while writerfella's education may have covered figures of speech, it provided precious little at all about racial bias, the white man's racial icons, and purported significance of collegiate symbolism. What writerfella meant is that he allows no one to lump him in with any group without his conscious agreement. That's exactly what George Bush meant when he said, 'You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists,' in that any dissent made you an enemy of the state. Your 'editorial we' meant that no one was allowed to become an 'enemy of the statement'.
In any case, writerfella's education was purer than yours because he allowed no infusions of racial discrimination or bias to be included...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'

Rob said...

Do you tell everyone who uses the editorial "we" that you don't want to be included? What a colossal waste of time that must be.

Since the editorial "we" is a figure of speech, it doesn't necessarily include anyone. That's the whole point of the editorial "we."

Bush wasn't using a figure of speech when he referred to "us" and "them." He really believes everyone can be divided into two camps.

Therefore, save your unnecessary disclaimers for Bush. Or for anyone who is speaking literally, not figuratively.

writerfella said...

Writerfella here --
But few people if any ever are speaking literally, as they do not understand what the term 'literally' means. 'Literally' means that the words you use are exact, concrete, demonstrative of realities that are ineluctable, and finally, alive and living. What they find themselves truly addressing are abstractions that become the points they are trying to establish. Too bad, as those abstractions simply are opinions. And, as we all know, opinions never are facts, and facts never are opinions...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'

Rob said...

Well, you and I know what "literally" means, presumably. You also recognize figures of speech when people use them, presumably. Therefore, don't waste time challenging me when I use a figure of speech.

Anonymous said...

Hey Rob, I just stumbled upon your blog. I am the author of the original article and just wanted to say that I couldn't agree more with your application of the argument to Native American mascots. It is a perfect fit! And just as sad...