Bloody Jackson, Family Guy, and Archie Bunker

A long but must-read column addresses many of the points I've raised here over the years. Check it out.

Commentary: 'Fashionable Bigotry' Creeps into Twin Cities Theatre Scene

By Rob CallahanI went to see "Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson" by Minneapolis Musical Theatre, not because I wanted to give the show any ink, or because I thought I'd have anything more to add, but because the controversy surrounding its treatment of Native people was relevant to a topic I've been tracking. In short, this was a show that pitted an emo version of America's seventh president against a bunch of white people playing Indians. They were resplendent in fringed blankets, buckskin and other such Native equivalents to the trappings of blackface. The show also had performers chanting for the death of Indians, and there was a big song and dance number celebrating genocide.

So, yeah. Pretty racist, but the company and their communication team adamantly denied that allegation and the local critics were divided on the issue, so I had to see for myself. Was this all in harmless fun, was it completely racist, or was it what the kids these days refer to as "fashionable bigotry?" That raised even more questions, not the least of which was ...

Can racism be done ironically?

Fashionable bigotry (also called "hipster racism" or "ironic racism") is this strange, newish phenomenon that's been popping up all over the arts and entertainment industry. You've got the Flaming Lips, Macklemore, Fallin, Ullman and Silverman to name a few. Count Tarantino in, too, as he's basically the modern godfather of the stuff. You pretty much see it all over.

Here in the Twin Cities, we like to think our enlightened arts scene is immune to this sort of thing, but it looks like we're wrong. We dealt with Tomahawk Tassels and 'Miss Saigon' last year, there was that one uncomfortable portrayal in "A Very Die Hard Christmas" back in December, and now we've had "Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson." For all I know, there may be others. This is just the stuff I've seen in my time as an arts writer, so my list may not be comprehensive. I've seen a lot of shows, but I don't see them all and I haven't been in the game that long.

As for what constitutes hipster racism, there are a couple of telltale signs. Sometimes it's just the intentional evocation of racism, but in a way that's supposed to come off as edgy and self-aware. It's a brand of racism that's meant solely to get attention, to get people talking about it and bring them out to see it. In this context, it's the performing arts equivalent of clickbait. The perpetrator probably doesn't actually believe in it, but if we think they do and we can't stop talking about them, then it's served its purpose.

When it gets worse is when it's employed another way, when ironic racism gets conjured up under the premise that genuine racism simply isn't real. The perpetrator believes it's no longer taken seriously, or it's simply obsolete in our modern post-racial society. In essence, the argument is that this can't be real racism, because racism like this doesn't happen anymore. By this reasoning, the perpetrator may excuse the meanest, most offensive racist nonsense imaginable while arguing that it doesn't matter because, obviously, no one's actually offended. By extension, anyone who does claim to be offended must be wrong, or perhaps they just don't get the joke. In essence, if someone's ironic racism offends you, it's because you're not smart enough.

That's one of a few de rigueur responses you'll see trotted out whenever people raise concerns over this type of material. Another is the tried and true tactic of crying wolf (or, in this case, crying censorship,) in which the perpetrator misrepresents his critics, and yet another is one in which the perpetrator misrepresents himself or his work.

It's a kind of deflection technique, arguing that a person can get away with it because someone else did, this one time, a while back in a completely different context. Seth MacFarlane, for example, is known for defending "Family Guy" on the basis that "All in the Family" was offensive, too. To him, the clueless bigotry of Peter Griffin is analogous to the clueless bigotry of Archie Bunker. If one was just fine, so must be the other.

Does the Archie Bunker defense work?

In the case of "Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson," MMT artistic director Steven Meerdink took a page from MacFarlane's book and called the show "kind of a 'Family Guy' viewpoint of history." He constructed a sort of Aunt Sally defense for his interpretation of the character on the merits of someone else's entirely dissimilar character. Meerdink cites Peter Griffin as this rebooted Andrew Jackson's source material, and MacFarlane defaults to Archie Bunker. The inferred argument, that Jackson is based on a perfectly acceptable different bigot who, in turn, is based on another perfectly acceptable even more different bigot, is a bit of a stretch. It only works if you stick to the most superficial similarities.

That's because there's a reason why pop culture historians laud Archie Bunker: He was a pioneering character who turned the popular American sitcom into a mainstream venue for the discussion of some serious, heavy topics. This show wanted its audience to have hard conversations, and it used humor to soften the impact and keep those conversations going. Yes, Archie Bunker was a bigot, but he was also the butt of the joke. He was awful, but his awfulness always had consequences. That was the show's moral. In every way, he was a mirror in which mainstream America could gaze upon its own reflection, comfortably acknowledge the blemishes and hopefully deal with them.Callahan goes on to address the white privilege behind the play and the "talk-back" session the theater held:Two Hennepin Theatre Trust employees were in the audience. They cut her off two other times, alleging that she was threatening to somehow ban or censor their production, and a group of white men directly behind me displayed exactly zero qualms about interrupting her once more after that. To be clear, she wasn't raising her voice. She wasn't making accusations. I never once heard her so much as allude to bans or censorship. Each time she was interrupted, she was calmly responding to a direct question. (Or trying to, anyway.)

If you've followed the follow up chatter out there, you've seen a lot of talk about the effects of privilege on that talk-back session: the privilege of ignorance of consequences, the privilege to silence your detractors, to cloak that silence under the guise of an open forum, and so on. Regardless of where you fell in the debate, you couldn't deny that privilege fueled it.

That's the thing about privilege. It shows itself in many ways. This time, it just happened to pop up as a group of authoritative white people publicly tag-teaming a lone woman of color, and being so oblivious to the prevailing power dynamic that it never occurred to them that this was a problem, or that the reporter in the room might notice.

How Are We Privileged?

The fact that "Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson"'s first act couldn't make it five minutes (literally, I timed it) without a racial slur is troubling. That the critics in town can't agree over whether or not the show was racist? That's more than troubling. It's also ignorant and, as much as I hate to say it, cowardly.

Pay attention, fellow critics, because this is what people mean when they call us privileged: We have the privilege of watching ninety uninterrupted minutes of dictionary definition racism, then going back to the public and telling them we didn't see anything wrong. We ought to try and shake that privilege off. Now is as good a time as any to shed the subjectivity and pomp of the values dissonance that muddles our work.Comment:  For more on white privilege, see Whites Are Blind to Their Privilege and Conservatives Champion White Privilege.

Mike's mom vs. Archie Bunker

Some people are saying the racist joke on Mike and Molly is understandable because Mike's mom, the character who uttered it, is like Archie Bunker from All in the Family. They argue that her racist comment is similar to his racist comments, again exposing racism to ridicule. If liberals like me accepted Archie on TV, we have to accept Peggy too.

Nice try, but wrong. Not just a little wrong, but as wrong as wrong can be. Here's why:

For starters, I'm not even sure the mother is a confirmed racist. Wikipedia's description of her makes no mention of any racist atttiudes:Margaret "Peggy" Biggs

Peggy Biggs (Rondi Reed) is Mike's mother. She is very controlling and traditional, as well as grumpy and cranky. Peggy frequently expects Mike to do her bidding at the drop of a hat, which made her initially cold toward Molly becoming a part of Mike's life. She has since warmed up some to Molly, and began working as a lunch lady at Molly's school in Season 2. She is divorced, living alone with her dog "Jim" (she even turned over Mike's old room to Jim) and often talks about her ex-husband, Jack, leaving her and running away with a "whore." Her longtime courtship of a sweet-natured and unsuccessful fellow Catholic named Dennis ended badly when she finally decided she was ready for them to have sex, only to realize he'd suffered a heart attack and died. (A shocked Peggy tried to blame it on a sour lemon cake Molly had prepared for her birthday, only to have a no-longer-afraid Molly jab Peggy about her ham-fisted efforts to cover up her death-blocked seduction of Dennis.) Despite her obvious disdain for Jack, the two sleep together after Mike and Molly's wedding rehearsal, but Peggy dumps him immediately after.I Googled the Peggy Biggs character and didn't find a long list of racial slurs she had uttered, or denunciations from outraged fans. I'm guessing this comment is much worse than her usual comments.

If the character isn't a racist who constantly says objectionable things, that makes this "joke" an anomaly. We have to wonder why she attacked Indians when she apparently doesn't attack other minorities.

Peggy worse than Archie

Peggy's comment--characterizing an entire state full of people as worthless--is worse than anything I remember from Archie Bunker. Take blacks, for instance. True, Archie thought they had rhythm, ate fried chicken, and drove flashy cars. But he didn't label the entire race "criminals." His bigotry was more nuanced than that.

Fact is, Archie wasn't a hateful character as Peggy Biggs seems to be. He thought he was being kind and helpful by pointing out a minority's (imagined) flaws. If they only realized how they were inferior, he thought, they could improve their lot in life.

It's like the time the Dodgers' Al Campanis said blacks don't have the "necessities" to be managers or the buoyancy to swim. Campanis and Archie were well-meaning even if they were woefully ignorant.

Proving the point, Archie got over much of his prejudice as All in the Family went on. He grew tolerant of the Jeffersons and his Puerto Rican maid Theresa. He rejected his friends who wanted to join the Klan. He even joined a synagogue for his Jewish ward Stephanie.

He reserved his real hatred for armchair liberals like son-in-law Mike. Really, for anyone he considered a moocher or loser--Mike, initially, and everyone on Edith's side of the family. So his hatred was personal--directed at individuals who weren't pulling their weight--not racial or ethnic.

Archie always got comeuppance

Perhaps more important, Archie was humiliated and shamed every time he said something racist or sexist. Mike and Gloria, Lionel and the other Jeffersons, neighbor Irene, cousin Maude, even Edith sometimes...pretty much everyone schooled him on why he was wrong. He never went unchallenged, never had the final word. His ignorance was never allowed to stand.

In contrast, the only reaction to Peggy Biggs's "drunk Indians" remark comes from Molly, who says, "Really? That's not what it says on their license plate." One might take this as a very mild rebuke, but it's more of a playful counter-joke. It does nothing to contradict the stereotypical notion Peggy planted in the audience's minds.

Finally, note the context of the two shows. In 1970, minorities were just starting to appear in the mainstream media. Ethnic humor--about Jews, Latinos, Poles ("Pollocks"), Italians, Irishmen, et al.--was still common. Along with the rest of America, Archie learned that such jokes were offensive to their subjects. And that what was acceptable in the past had to change.

In 2013, Peggy Biggs no longer has that excuse. Her character has experienced forty years of social pressure to rein in offensive "jokes." A slew of well-publicized controversies--Mel Gibson, Michael Richards, Don Imus, et al--have made it plain what's unacceptable. Peggy knows or should know that labeling an entire race is wrong.

Bottom line: Unless the 2013 equivalent of Mike Stivic slammed Peggy for her scornful racism, it's unlike anything we heard on All in the Family. It would've been offensive then and it's definitely offensive now. The only context that makes racist stereotyping "okay" is when the joke's on the offender, and that didn't happen here.

For more on the subject, see Stereotyping Explained to South Park Apologists, The Dudesons, Polish Jokes, and Minstrel Shows, and Okay to Stereotype in "Satires"?

Colbert satirizes UN declaration scare

Stephen Colbert exposes Obama's latest takeover plan on the Comedy Channel's Colbert Report, 1/4/11:


Comment:  I thought this bit was cute but also stereotypical at the end. It was a good subject to satirize, but in Colbert's final speech, it wasn't clear who or what he was satirizing.

A comment on Facebook:He is playing the part of a Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly. That is the point of his character. He is the modern-day Archie Bunker.Yes, we understand that. The question is whether Colbert is satirizing white men or Indians at the end. I'd say he crossed the line from one to the other.

True, it's similar to an Archie Bunker rant. But Mike Stivic or someone usually contradicted Archie's racist remarks and made him look stupid. Nothing like that happened to punctuate Colbert's remarks, which makes them a problem.

Colbert's bit really annoyed someone else:Shame on Comedy Central for choosing to take that story in the direction they did. I know that they are in the business of being funny and making light of serious topics--but the shame of it is that what could and should have been an opportunity to finally get the topic of the UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights in front of the general public and mass of uninformed Americans was turned into a farce---and worse, a farce that went right into the usual stereotyping and racism. Me heapum pissed off.Yeah, how are audiences supposed to take Colbert's Tonto talk? Is he talking like an ignorant Indian? Or like an ignorant white man's impression of an ignorant Indian?

Since he's supposedly directing his comments at Indians, the correct answer is the former, or both. That is, he's talking in a style intended to communicate successfully with Indians. If he's portraying himself as ignorant, he's also portraying Indians as ignorant. That's stereotypical.

If Sherman Alexie or someone came on and mocked Colbert's "ignorance" the way the Jeffersons used to mock Archie, that would be different. But nothing like that happened. Nothing told viewers that Indians are really educated and speak perfect English like everyone else.

In short, the bit was a nice try, but it failed in the end. Better luck next time, Comedy Central.

For more on the UN Declaration, see Modoc Nation Rips UN Declaration and Countdown Covers UN Declaration Scare. For more on how humor and satire work, see The Dudesons, Polish Jokes, and Minstrel Shows and Okay to Stereotype in "Satires"?

Worst Indian civilization ever?

A satire in the Onion implicates Amazon Indians:

Archaeologists Unearth Lousiest Civilization Ever

'What A Bunch Of Losers,' Researchers SayArchaeologists working in a remote section of the Amazon Rainforest announced Tuesday that they have discovered the ancient remnants of what they claimed may be the lousiest civilization in human history.

According to Dr. Ronald Farber, a professor from the University of Minnesota who is leading the excavation, the "half-assed" culture existed from about 450 B.C. until 220 B.C., when it abruptly disappeared—an event he said was "honestly no big loss" for our understanding of human culture.

"From what we've unearthed so far, it appears this pre-Columbian civilization was pretty much just copying what other, more superior groups nearby were doing—albeit to a much shittier degree," Farber said. "They sucked. You should see the useless mess of a calendar these dumbasses came up with."Comment:  Stephen Bridenstine also posted this piece in his Drawing on Indians blog. Here's his take on it:The article is clearly meant to be parody. It satirizes the traditional stereotype that the Amazon was full of backwards savages and cannibals incapable of creating or sustaining any hint of civilization. The article references all the great achievements of the Pre-Columbian Americans such as advanced knowledge of astronomy, massive public works, written languages, and the fine arts.And:Essentially, The Onion draws upon the advances of Native civilizations in order to point out the traditional prejudices of non-Native people against the so-called "primitive" Indians. It demonstrates the hypocrisy of continuing to think of Indians as backwards people when for thousands of years Native civilizations were just as advanced or even more advanced than those in Europe!Stephen thinks the Onion piece could be a response to the scientific findings noted in Amazon Indians Weren't Savages. That could very well be.

As Stephen puts it, the key question is whether this is whether this is an "effective satire or just not funny?" My thoughts:

On the negative side

I'd say the satire loses points for its blunt-force insults. It's too extreme to be especially funny. Onion pieces are usually more subtle, and subtle is usually more effective.

The satire also loses points for conflating subjective judgments (e.g., their art was inferior) with objective fault-finding (e.g., their calendar was mistaken). This implies the Indians actually were stupid and incompetent. It introduces some unnecessary ambiguity that weakens the effect.

On the positive side

It's obvious this piece is meant to be facetious. By Western standards, the worst Indian civilization would be one with grunting, half-naked savages killing and eating each other. Any civilization that had writing, calendars, irrigation systems, and "massive sun temples" is more advanced than many tribal cultures.

As Stephen notes, the piece doesn't use the words "Native," "Indian," or "indigenous." The only reference to the people's ethnicity is that they're descended from Mesoamerican tribes. This effectively removes race from the equation. "Those Indians were idiotic" is potentially offensive; "that civilization was idiotic" isn't.

Despite the criticism of the tribe's actual mistakes, it's clear the real targets are the Western observers. Their over-the-top invective says more about them than the culture they're slamming. Real researchers wouldn't react this way, but many Americans would. They don't realize their ancestors were just as "primitive," and they don't think history is worth pursuing.

What this tells us

This piece could've been better, but I'd say it's a decent satire. In particular, it shows how to use Native stereotypes in humor without attacking and insulting Indians. The key is to know who your targets are.

Like the Sons of Tucson episode I praised, this piece has non-Indians spewing ignorant and stereotypical comments about Indians. But the comments are so obviously bad that they indict the speakers, not the subjects.

They're examples of what we might call the Archie Bunker syndrome. When a moron says something moronic and people react accordingly, he's the one who looks stupid. Archie was exposing his own prejudice against minorities and the context made that clear.

Contrast this with the infamous Dudesons episode. Although the overall tone is comedic, the Dudesons never let on that they know anything about Indians. That they're trying to satirize America's ignorance about Indians. Clearly they're the ignorant ones, not the audiences they're trying to reach.

Worse, they have a real Indian, Saginaw Grant, to praise and encourage their efforts. If Grant had played the Michael Stivic ("Meathead") role, pointing out the Dudesons' stupidity, the episode might've come across differently. Instead he lent legitimacy to the affair.

Imagine if Lionel or George Jefferson or Sammy Davis Jr. had agreed with Archie Bunker about blacks being different and inferior. Then Archie's message would've seemed sincere and believable. It would've seemed to be the show's message--the point Norman Lear wanted to get across.

Instead, everyone on the show undercut Archie. This told audiences that his beliefs were socially and morally unacceptable. The takeaway was that Archie was wrong, not that he was right.

Moral of the story: If you're writing humor about Indians, make sure you know what the target is. Portraying people whooping and dancing in clownish costumes isn't a satire of Native stereotypes. It's a satire of Natives.

For more on humor about Indians, see:

Racism in Bloody, Bloody Andrew Jackson
DJs learn not to satirize Natives
Quileute Chihuahuas okay in spoof?
"Sick" cartoonist Callahan dies

Below:  "Researchers examine some 'totally retarded' ancient pottery."

Mohawk in Stephanie and the Crime Wave

In the Stephanie and the Crime Wave episode of All in the Family (airdate: 1/28/79), Archie is barefoot because he can't find his socks. Edith says they'll turn up. The following exchange ensues:EDITH:  Now, come on. Sit down and eat your breakfast.

ARCHIE:  In bare feet? In bare feet, Edith?

ARCHIE:  This is a home in Queens. It ain't a wigwam on the Mohawk reservation.Comment:  Archie has made a few other references to Indians. I like this one because it's a perfect example of what people like him think about Indians. namely, that they're savages living a primitive lifestyle on some remote reservation.

In reality, I believe a lot of Mohawks moved to New York City. To be construction workers and so forth. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more Mohawks in the city than on the reservation. But you won't hear anything like that in shows like this.

By the way, this is one of my favorite All in the Family episodes. It may be my favorite. Like other favorites, I watch it every couple years.

For more on the subject, see Archie Bunker on Indians and TV Shows Featuring Indians.

Archie Bunker on Indians

In the March 10, 1973, episode of All in the Family titled "Archie Learns His Lesson," Archie is studying to earn his high-school diploma. Edith quizzes him on the test questions while Mike listens from across the room.EDITH:  Who said the treatment of the American Indian was a national disgrace?

ARCHIE:  Treatment of the American Indian, national disgrace. Uhh.

ARCHIE:  Well, uh, Geronimo?

EDITH:  Nooo.

ARCHIE:  C’mon, it had to be some Indian that said that. Who?

EDITH:  President Kennedy.

ARCHIE:  Aw, that’s a lie. Kennedy never said that.

ARCHIE:  Oh, maybe he said it, but he didn’t mean it. He maybe said it when he was running for office, trying to get the Indian vote, which he never got anyhow.

MIKE:  How do you know?

ARCHIE:  Because, Meathead, the Indians don’t vote.

MIKE:  Archie, the Indians were given the vote in 1924.

ARCHIE:  I ain’t talking about that. I’m saying that they don’t use their vote like a fella told me. They sell all their horses for booze and then they can’t ride into town.

MIKE:  That is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard!

ARCHIE:  That ain’t stupid. That’s the truth. That’s what the Indians do to us after all we done for them.

MIKE:  All we’ve done for them?! Arch, let me tell you something about this country and the American Indians and all we’ve done for them. We lied to them, we cheated them, and then we drove them off their land without paying for it.

ARCHIE:  Hold it!

MIKE:  That’s right!

ARCHIE:  What’re you talking about, their land? They never had no land. They couldn’t read or write.

ARCHIE:  How could Sitting Bull sign a lease?

ARCHIE:  All the Indians ever do is ride around scalping wagon trains.

MIKE:  Archie, what would you do if someone cheated you out of your land?

ARCHIE:  Well, I wouldn’t scalp the guy. I’d hire myself a lawyer.

MIKE:  I don’t believe it. I don’t believe it! I’m in here with this lunacy! Help me!

ARCHIE:  What’re you yelling about? I ain’t talking about the Polacks, I’m talking about the Indians.

MIKE:  AARRGGHHH!Comment:  Archie pretty well summed up what most Americans believed at the time. Many Americans still believe such things.

For more on the subject, see TV Shows Featuring Indians.