Download Analyzing White Anger & Guilt in South Park's 'Apologies to Jesse Jackson': Depicting Whit and more Study notes Poetry in PDF only on Docsity!
ThePortrayalofWhiteAnxietyin South
Park ’s“WithApologiestoJesseJackson”
Nicole Binder Regensburg, Germany Abstract : Humor lends itself as a convenient tool to address sensitive issues such as race. Since 1997, the TV series South Park with its brash satire and rampant irony has been a prime example of how such issues are negotiated in American popular culture. However, the utilization of highly rhetorical devices such as satire or irony has divided scholars on whether the series promotes or stifles social discourse on race and ethnicity. In this article, I examine the episode “With Apologies to Jesse Jackson” (2007), focusing on how white feelings of anxiety are portrayed in this episode that is permeated by racial tension. The particular representation wavers between a social critique of the state of race relations in the United States and a portrayal of white anxiety as hindering open discourse on the topic. Ultimately, the article demonstrates that the scenes containing elements of white anxiety are portrayed in such a way as to critique the current dysfunctional state of race relations in the United States, urging viewers to critically consider issues of race rather than to inhibit such discourse. n the United States, issues pertaining to race are emotionally charged and difficult topics. In fact, they are so difficult that Maurice Berger states, “Americans are simply not ready to talk about these things in public” (qtd. in Maini et al. 110). Fortunately, humor is especially equipped to publicly address such problematic issues. In his book The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach , Rod A. Martin maintains that humor can be a useful tool in addressing situations that may be “too confrontational, potentially embarrassing, or otherwise risky” if handled in a direct manner (17). In the introduction to their book A Decade of Dark Humor: How Comedy, Irony, and Satire Shaped Post 9-11 America , Ted Gournelos and Viveca S. Green state that humor is a mode of conflict resolution that can “negotiate the dangers and pitfalls of [a heterogeneous] community” (xviii).
I
NicoleBinder Although humor may on its surface seem like a relief from the stress of everyday life, the complexities associated with using humor as a mode of conflict resolution should not be overlooked. Several different theories attempt to explain how humor works to make us laugh. According to the incongruity theory , humor results from the unexpected but appropriate juxtaposition of two or more frames of interpretation usually not associated with one another [...]. Superiority theory, by contrast, suggests that people laugh at those they find to be inferior to themselves [...] and in catharsis theory humor comes from a momentary eruption of relief of psychological and/or social tension. (Gournelos and Green xvii-xviii) However, humor is “a highly complex rhetorical, social and political tool,” and one “can never be quite certain who is laughing, how they’re laughing, or why they’re laughing” while at the same time being quite a powerful force in society as it leads people to act by delighting them (Gournelos and Green xviii). Additionally, Gournelos and Greene also recognize a shift in the role of humor in the post-9/11 US political realm, marked by “an increasingly media-saturated and heavily managed and branded political atmosphere” (xiii), in which humor—due to its complex and powerful nature—has proven to be quite influential in swaying public opinion and influencing political discourse (xv). In this context, humorous pieces can mean many different things to many different people and, as Gournelos and Greene state, “it is precisely this ambivalence that marks the increasingly socially active overall landscape of humor, irony, and satire in the post-9/11 United States” (xvii). All in all, the complex dynamics of humor as a rhetorical device together with the ambivalent nature of political irony and satire within the post-9/11 context makes investigating the accomplishments of humor in society quite challenging. Gournelos and Greene identify this challenge in their examination of ironic and satirical pieces that play with race and racial stereotypes. First, it is important to note that irony and satire are two distinct and complex modes of humor. According to Oxford Dictionaries , irony is “the expression of one’s meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite” (“Irony”) while satire is “the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices” (“Satire”). Using these modes of humor to address a contentious sociopolitical issue such as race relations can lead to ambivalent readings. On the one hand, such a piece might be misunderstood as racist humor. On the other hand, if the irony or satire is not lost on the audience, the piece may be understood as critiquing racist attitudes and encouraging open discourse on matters of race (Gournelos and Greene xxiv). However, despite the potential problems associated with humor, it is a very common way to address taboo issues in US culture. One of the most popular 42 as peers
NicoleBinder fallibility of all perspectives” (Ott 47) by acting as a ‘devil’s advocate’ for society and, thus, actually encourages viewers to think critically about race. In fact, this particular episode even provides viewers with some guidance with regard to navigating the complexities of race relations. Finally, the question of whether South Park is critical of bigoted thinking can be approached by considering if the series privileges the white dominant culture. It is interesting to note here that the scholars who have thus far investigated whether or not South Park supports bigoted thinking have done so by looking at how marginalized minorities are portrayed in the program and how their portrayal either reinforces or challenges dominant discourses. The ways in which the dominant culture is portrayed, however, have seldom been addressed. The only scholar to explore how the dominant culture, or whiteness, is portrayed in South Park is Phil Chidester. In his article “‘Respect My Authori-tah’: South Park and the Fragmentation/Reification of Whiteness,” he argues that whiteness is not determined by the presence of the Other but rather by the various forms whiteness takes on through the series’s four white main characters. The question of how whiteness is portrayed when it collides with other ethnicities has not been explored so far. Ultimately, I will argue that, rather than stifling discourse by presenting overt racism under the guise of humor, South Park ’s episode “With Apologies to Jesse Jackson” addresses racial tensions by means of portraying white anger and white guilt in a way that works to criticize the dysfunctional nature of race relations in the United States. It urges its viewers to reconsider how they deal with the very complex issue of race.
SCHOLARLY DEBATE
As already indicated, scholars are divided on the question whether South Park contests or affirms prevalent racial stereotypes. Some scholars maintain that South Park ’s all- inclusive brand of offensive humor ultimately invites viewers to be critical of racist or prejudicial thinking. In the introduction to their book The Deep End of South Park, Leslie Stratyner and James R. Keller call South Park ’s brand of humor “fart jokes with [the] higher purpose” of “correction and change” (3). They argue that through its ‘equal opportunity mockery,’ South Park acts as a ‘devil’s advocate’ in American society in that it urges all viewers to “question [their] own motives, and the motives of everyone else” (3). Furthermore, the series points to and criticizes overarching problems in society rather than attacks or supports any one group or position in particular (8). 44 as peers
ThePortrayalofWhiteAnxietyin SouthPark ’s“WithApologiestoJesseJackson” In their article “Beyond a Cutout World: Ethnic Humor and Discursive Integration in South Park ,” Matt Sienkiewicz and Nick Marx explore whether or not the series’s use of humor, which plays with racist and racial stereotypes, works to critique bigoted thinking and racial prejudice in America. While Sienkiewicz and Marx recognize that in some episodes, the viewer is likely to understand offensive humor as critical of prejudicial thinking due to the use of an obvious “lens of hyper-irony” through which positions like racial stereotypes are advanced only to be undercut, they also demonstrate that there are episodes in which the satirical use of racism or racist stereotypes is not as straightforward (8). Sienkiewicz and Marx argue that these episodes run the risk of sending a message that could be “regressive within the confines of the text” if they are not considered within the greater societal and cultural matrix (10). In fact, they stress that, especially with regard to racial or ethnic humor, the consideration of intertextual connections helps to clarify that the humor is meant to be critical of bigoted thinking (6). Ultimately, Sienkiewicz and Marx conclude that South Park ’s depictions of race and ethnicity “should not be dismissed as merely crude or potentially regressive” (17). Especially when considered in a broad discursive context, the series’s use of humor in “discussions of [racial and] ethnic prejudice works to show such prejudice as a systematic, social problem” that cannot “be blamed on certain ‘bad’ individuals” (5) and “invites the viewer [...] to give critical consideration to the way society and the media engage ethnic prejudice” (17). Brian L. Ott explores why viewers are drawn to the series as he investigates the various ways in which South Park produces pleasure. One of the modes of pleasure he identifies is the series’s use of irony. Ott differentiates between what he terms “the classical version of irony” (46), whereby the ironist means the opposite of what he or she says in order to promote his or her own opinion, and a second, humbler version of irony, whereby the ironist’s statement is “devoid of certainty because he or she is aware that there are no universal truths” (47). The latter is used with the intent of “demystify[ing] prevailing views” that “imprison thinking” (47). Ott argues that South Park utilizes the second form of irony and that the series consistently “demonstrate[s] the fallibility of all perspectives,” operating outside the paradigm of discourse typical of whichever social issue they address—also supporting the notion that South Park invites viewers to think critically about social issues (47). Finally, in her article “Shopping at J-Mart with the Williams,” Lindsay Coleman demonstrates that South Park ’s portrayal of prejudicial slurs and stereotypes works to “satirize the racism that still pervades” American society (132). She contends that while Trey Parker and Matt Stone also include slurs that refer to religious beliefs or body images, they especially depict how “central [racial and ethnic] prejudice is to the structure of an American story of an American town” (134) and “most consistently as peers
ThePortrayalofWhiteAnxietyin SouthPark ’s“WithApologiestoJesseJackson” cynical brand of ‘equal opportunity mockery’ provides the comforting illusion that everyone is laughing at everyone equally but it “avoids the notion that different groups have different histories of oppression in the United States” (122). Groening concludes that South Park “creates the comfort of laughter in an impossible situation” by humorously promoting a cynical attitude of mistrust and apathy and that it supports a “worldview in which nothing can be done about a flawed and corrupt political system” (120, 125).
THE CONSTRUCTION OF WHITENESS
Like any other racial or ethnic construct, whiteness is an artificial, “fractured, unstable, and mutable” cultural construct that “defines and limits” (Foster 2). Moreover, it is neither static nor fixed but rather dynamic as it “interacts with class, gender, and a range of other race-related cultural dynamics,” whose borders are “constantly negotiated [...] as individuals engage the forces and discourses that shape them” (Kincheloe 167, 170). Whiteness fundamentally differs from other constructs of race or ethnicity in several ways. Firstly, the concept of whiteness has developed into the dominant or hegemonic cultural force. Joe L. Kincheloe writes that the dominance of whiteness began during the European Enlightenment around the “notion of rationality with [...] a transcendental white, male, rational subject who operated at the recesses of power” (164). Whiteness was eventually assumed to be a universal norm to which all human beings should aspire, and in fact, it soon became the “White Man’s burden” to be the “beneficent teachers of the barbarians” (165). Furthermore, J. Blaine Hudson argues that in the United States the tradition of white dominance informed the institutionalization of democracy as “affluent white males” created “a body of laws designed (by them) to protect their property and privilege” (263). The cultural hegemony of whiteness has had adverse effects on marginalized groups in terms of access to economic, social, and political power; these effects have also had a psychological dimension and have manifested themselves, for example, in self-hatred, anger, and division (Hudson 267; Kincheloe 179). Secondly, whiteness differs from other ethnic or racial constructs in that the cultural hegemony of whiteness has become so pervasive in today’s power structures that it has become largely unmarked or invisible (Kincheloe 163; Griffin 12). Kincheloe argues that white norms of rationality and reason have become infused into free market values and inextricably linked with global economic power and success, thereby forming “a hegemony so seamless” within these modern power structures as peers
NicoleBinder (166). In fact, when Irma Maini asked her culturally diverse group of students to define whiteness, they did so using terms such as “Opportunity, Money, Power, and Respect” (104). Critically approaching issues of race in contemporary society is certainly a great challenge due to the hegemonic yet unmarked construction of whiteness. Thirdly, whiteness can be differentiated from other racial constructs because of white privilege. In their respective articles, Ronald E. Hall and Hudson explore the institutionalization of white cultural hegemony in American social, political, and economic power structures; the existence of a privileged white position within these power structures; and the negative effects that exclusion from such a privileged position has had on nonwhite groups, particularly African Americans. Hall sees US democracy as a system that “values citizens for their amount of power” and maintains that privileged access to power structures has resulted in a higher standard of living for whites whereas marginalized groups who have not had the same access to such privileged positions consequently do not enjoy the same standard of living (567). Hudson maintains that although not all whites have benefited equally from a privileged economic and political position, not having access to a privileged position can account for the striking economic discrepancy between whites and marginalized groups (270- 71). Both scholars argue that in order to remedy the inequality brought about by white privilege, measures designed to empower marginalized groups, such as affirmative action programs, are necessary (Hudson 271-72; Hall 576-77). Critically exploring the concept of whiteness in all its complexity has proven to be a fertile and influential area of inquiry for scholars. In his book White , Richard Dyer addresses the various facets of whiteness and dedicates his first chapter to discussing it as a dynamic ethnic construction and a dominant yet invisible force. He approaches whiteness from a male as well as political perspective and in terms of its historical development. Dyer ultimately recognizes whiteness as a paradoxical construct that is both “everything and nothing” (39). In addition to critical whiteness studies, whiteness is the object of academic inquiry in fields of study such as gender, postcolonial, ethnic, and sexuality studies, where dominant white, European, male cultural values are further problematized. In this context, whites have “come to see themselves through the eyes of Blacks, Latinos, Asians, and indigenous peoples” (Kincheloe 163) and have been forced to “confront for the first time their own ethnicity,” which has resulted in what Kincheloe calls “an unprecedented crisis of whiteness” (171). However, he points out that many scholars “seem better equipped to explain white privilege than to define whiteness itself ” (162). This emphasis on privilege when discussing a complex construct like whiteness can prove quite problematic. A number of scholars have provided valuable insight 48 as peers
NicoleBinder On the other end of the spectrum of white anxiety is white guilt, which is characterized by a sense of sorrow or shame for being associated with white privilege, injustice, or oppression and is marked by the desire to repair relations between whites and other groups. This feeling of guilt has been criticized by some conservative groups as excessive political correctness or an assault on white culture (Kincheloe 179-80). White guilt can manifest itself in a number of ways, one being the self-denigration of white ethnicity whereby nonwhite cultures are held in higher esteem than the white one (Kincheloe 172). White guilt can also be marked by a desire to seek forgiveness in order to alleviate the pain of racial consciousness. One way in which this can be done is by seeking “‘authentic’ knowledge” of marginalized identities, which can exacerbate racial tension as these identities either risk being “swallowed whole by the white whale” or being intruded upon by well-meaning whites who inadvertently “violat[e] [cultural] boundaries” by “[presuming] access and welcome” (Griffin 6-7). Another very common manifestation of guilt is to avoid it entirely by identifying with and celebrating an oppressed facet of one’s cultural identity in order to escape having to grapple with the complexities of being white (Kincheloe 174; Griffin 11-12; Maini et al. 115-16). Clearly, the concept of whiteness is anything but straightforward and simple. It is artificial, dynamic, dominant, and unmarked; addressing whiteness elicits many different emotions. Scholars like Griffin and Kincheloe both offer advice on how whiteness can be critically explored without entering into a battle of emotional wills. Griffin states that successfully approaching whiteness will involve “defamiliarizing the ‘normal,’ articulating the assumed, problematizing the ‘given,’ and implicating the subject in all its various dimensions” (12-13). Kincheloe states that “a critical pedagogy of whiteness must balance a serious critique of whiteness and white power with a narrative that refuses to demonize white people” (185). In short, if the construct of whiteness is to be explored, it must be done in a critical manner whereby different perspectives and emotions are recognized and embraced.
THE STRUCTURE OF MY ANALYSIS
With racial tension and feelings of white anxiety as its centerpiece, the bitingly humorous episode “With Apologies to Jesse Jackson” makes for a particularly interesting case study to determine whether South Park ’s humor works to criticize or privilege whiteness. In this episode, racial tension and humor collide when Randy Marsh commits a racist blunder on the television show Wheel of Fortune when challenged to solve the puzzle “N_GGERS” with the clue “People who annoy you.” 50 as peers
ThePortrayalofWhiteAnxietyin SouthPark ’s“WithApologiestoJesseJackson” Randy reluctantly answers with the word “NIGGERS” only to find that the correct answer is “NAGGERS.” During the rest of the episode, the fallout of Randy’s blunder runs its course both in the adult world as well as in that of the series’s ten-year-old main characters, Stan Marsh (Randy’s son), Eric Cartman, Kenny McCormick, and Kyle Broflovski. In the main plot, Randy seeks to remedy his use of this offensive word in a number of humorous scenes. He is first shown kissing Jesse Jackson’s posterior as an apology to the African American community. Next, in an attempt to better understand African American culture, Randy attends a comedy show, which runs smoothly until the comedian recognizes him and mockingly points out that the “nigger guy” is in the audience. After Randy sadly saunters out of the club, he is subjected to even more social derision as he is refused service by two whites at a convenience store and is accosted in the street by a group of white children. In the next scene, Randy attends a poetry slam and unsuccessfully attempts to obtain sympathy by sharing a poem about his own ostracism. He then again tries to make amends for his blunder by dedicating the “Randy Marsh African American Scholarship.” After narrowly escaping an attack by three socially progressive ‘rednecks,’ Randy joins forces with a group of “nigger guys” who have also been ostracized from society for their use of racial slurs. The group consists of Michael Richards, a comedian who publicly used the n-word; Mark Fuhrman, a detective in the O. J. Simpson case who perjured himself after having denied using racial slurs, thereby jeopardizing the entire case; as well as two other white ‘everymen’ who have also committed some sort of racist blunder. The group invites Randy to work with them to fight back against their collective ‘victimization’ and successfully lobby Congress to pass a law that prohibits the use of the words “nigger” and “guy” together unless separated by at least seven words. In contrast to Randy, his son Stan is able to successfully resolve the conflict with his peer Token Williams, one of the few African American characters. I will analyze the scenes to evaluate whether white anxiety, amidst the fallout of such a racially charged situation, is portrayed in a literal manner, sympathetic toward whites, and as a legitimate response to racial tension or whether it is shown in a more ironic and satirical manner, thereby treating this anxiety as part of the problem of racial tension. As many of the scenes are presented in an exaggerated manner, such as the apology scene with Jesse Jackson, I read the episode as a satirical comment on white anxiety because considering these scenes in a literal manner seems rather inadequate and simplistic. Also, reading this episode as a satire provides for a much more in-depth and critical discussion of race relations in contemporary American society. as peers
ThePortrayalofWhiteAnxietyin SouthPark ’s“WithApologiestoJesseJackson” forgives him, harboring no residual anger toward Stan. In this successful resolution scene, neither white guilt nor white anger are present. Instead, Stan and Token’s discourse is marked by openness and honesty. Ultimately, the episode “Apologies to Jesse Jackson” critically approaches the concept of whiteness and its role in today’s racial discourse by not adhering to simplified binaries that pit white against black.
ANALYSIS OF THE MAIN PLOT
The function of the Wheel of Fortune scene in this episode is to involve viewers personally in the racist incident that is the central focus of the entire episode. As Randy is asked to solve the puzzle with the clock ticking and his winnings on the line, viewers are immediately drawn into the ‘live’ television scene and its corresponding pressure and are confronted with their own subliminal racist impulses. The tension is palpable: the predominantly white audience with brows furrowed and mouths agape in nervous anticipation and the African American cameraman glaring directly at the viewer, everyone assuming the worst. As the clock ticks, Randy hems and haws uncomfortably but finally decides to solve the puzzle by giving the ‘obvious’ answer, “NIGGERS.” Neither he nor anyone else seems to consider that the word “NAGGERS” might be the answer. His failure to solve this simple puzzle literally spells out for viewers the underlying racism in American society and “force[s] [them] to confront [...] [their] own assumptions and latent prejudices” (Sienkiewicz and Marx 8). The apology scene with Jesse Jackson problematizes feelings of both white guilt and white anger. Understanding the usage of the phrase ‘to kiss ass’ is relevant to reading this scene. Oxford Dictionaries defines this as to “behave in an obsequious or sycophantic way” (“Kiss Ass”). The word “sycophantic” suggests that one is overly eager to please a person in power in order to gain an advantage of some sort. Thus, on the one hand, this humorous representation of Randy literally kissing the posterior of Jesse Jackson exhibits white guilt as one must wonder why Randy would employ such drastic means to apologize. Griffin notes that white guilt can be characterized by whites who seek forgiveness in order to lose a “painful racial consciousness” (6). In this scene, the viewer cannot be sure if Randy is willing to degrade himself in order to apologize because he is sincerely sorry for what he has said or if he is rather apologizing to quell the embarrassment and negative fallout stemming from his racist blunder. Regardless, the positioning of this scene at the beginning of the episode— before Randy experiences all of the negative repercussions headed his way—shows that Randy’s overeager and exaggerated attempt to seek forgiveness is to no avail. This as peers
NicoleBinder scene, therefore, questions if an apology designed to make whites feel better is an effective way to improve race relations in the United States. On the other hand, the word “obsequious” suggests that the act is excessive or servile. The fact that Randy is forced to “kiss ass” in order to be forgiven may appeal to angry whites who believe that they are unfairly victimized by attempts to remedy inequality in society. However, white anger also falls flat when one considers the presence of Jesse Jackson in this particular scene, in which Jackson’s reputation is satirically portrayed.^1 Firstly, Randy assumes that Jackson’s status as a prominent African American religious leader and civil rights activist who is associated with Martin Luther King somehow equates to an official, legitimate pardon from the entire African American community—an assumption later invalidated by Token’s comment that Jackson “is not the emperor of black people.” Secondly, through the exaggerated manner in which Randy is forced to seek forgiveness, the more controversial and unsavory aspects of Jackson’s reputation emerge, thereby further problematizing the assumption that Jackson unequivocally represents the interests and attitudes of the African American community. Here, Jackson is presented as an opportunist—quite literally, as he uses the occasion as a photo opportunity—revealing that he is more interested in what Randy’s action means for himself than in what it means for improving race relations. This scene visually takes problematic race relations to the extreme as Randy degrades himself for forgiveness at Jackson’s politically motivated behest and ultimately satirizes both men’s self-serving actions as neither ends up alleviating the racial tension brought on by Randy’s blunder. While this clip of Randy “kiss[ing] ass” may first appear supportive of white angry feelings of injustice, the use of such a controversial and divisive character like Jackson—whose politics in this scene are shown to be self-serving and not representative of African American sentiments toward or experiences of racism—works to undermine an overly simplistic emotional response to the complexities of today’s racial discourse. 1 Jackson is a very prominent member of the African American community, a politician, a pastor, and a civil rights activist. On his biographical page for the Rainbow Push Coalition website, an organization he has founded and of which he is currently president, he is described as having played “a pivotal role in virtually every movement for empowerment, peace, civil rights, gender equality, and economic and social justice” (“Reverend Jesse L. Jackson Sr.”). He worked with Martin Luther King in the Civil Rights Movement during the 1960s. However, Jackson is also a very controversial figure. He has been called “brazen, hypocritical and reckless” for actions such as having extramarital affairs, accepting money from organizations he accuses of not being involved in minority affairs, and benefiting financially from his role as an activist, among others (Belluck). His politics have also been called divisive, as evidenced by an alleged “uneasiness” between him and President Barack Obama stemming from the fact that Obama was raised by a white mother and is, therefore, viewed by Jackson as not “mainstream African-American” (Harnden). In fact, Jackson had to apologize for using the word “nigger” (Harnden). Even his “role as the nation’s pre-eminent African-American figure” has been said to be “on the wane” by black clergy members (Belluck). 54 as peers
NicoleBinder institutionalization of racism, feelings of white victimization at the hands of marginalized groups are also rendered invalid in these scenes. In the poetry slam scene, Randy delivers the following poem about his own ostracism: Words with venom, words that bind, Words used like weapons to cloud my mind. I’m a person, I’m a man, but no matter how I try, People just say, “Hey! There’s that nigger guy.” Everywhere I go it’s always the same, Everyone just thinks of me as that one single name. “Hey nigger guy!” “Nigger guy!” “Hi nigger guy!” Stop! Now go, call me nigger guy, fill me with your hate, Try to bring me down, boop bop you’re too late. When will it end? Will there ever be a time Where I can be thought of as more than just nigger guy? Respect. Slam poetry is a genre “often [...] drawing upon racial, economic, and gender injustices” (“A Brief Guide”). As a member of the dominant culture, Randy appropriates an art form traditionally utilized by marginalized groups, which they have used to draw attention to their circumstances. Both the content of his poem as well as the manner in which he chooses to deliver it force Randy’s audience as well as the viewer to consider whether Randy’s ‘oppression’ is actually comparable to forms of oppression experienced by marginalized groups. The reaction of the diverse audience indicates a negative reply as they incredulously stare back at Randy after he delivers his poem. Griffin offers valuable insight to the audience’s reaction toward Randy. She argues that the integration of marginalized cultures by the dominant white culture can actually drive a deeper wedge between them as their “interests, values, and culture [are] swallowed whole by the white whale” (7). In this scene, as a member of the dominant culture, Randy’s hijacking of slam poetry to express his own perceived feelings of victimization actually works to undermine his claim of oppression as audience members refuse to validate Randy’s feelings of victimization—a negative experience that is actually his own fault rather than the result of systematic oppression by the dominant culture. In the same vein, I contend that this scene also highlights problems with feelings of white guilt. Among the diverse audience are a woman and a Goth, both of whom are white but could emphasize a facet of their personality that would allow them to qualify as a member of a minority as well. According to several scholars, the foregrounding of such a factor in order to escape having to grapple with being white is a manifestation of white guilt (Kincheloe 174; Griffin 11-12; Maini et al. 115-16). In 56 as peers
ThePortrayalofWhiteAnxietyin SouthPark ’s“WithApologiestoJesseJackson” the poetry slam scene, everyone, even the whites, refuses to accept Randy’s claims of oppression. He is clearly viewed as a member of the dominant, oppressive white culture, which would require the whites in the audience to more strongly identify with their oppressed identities rather than their white identities. In fact, their very presence at a slam poetry event further supports this contention. Their failure to sympathize with Randy in this scene, thus, highlights the divisive nature that feelings of white guilt have among white people. In the following scene, Randy dedicates the “Randy Marsh African American Scholarship” and delivers the following speech: And so, it is my honor to announce the Randy Marsh African American Scholarship Foundation. It is my hope that this foundation will prove my commitment to the education of African American students and erase, once and for all, my identity as “the nigger guy.” You really, you really don’t know how hard it is to be constantly reminded of something lame that happened in your past. I mean, I just wanna move on from what happened on Wheel of Fortune , you know? And when people call me “nigger guy” they’re bringing up a painful chapter of my history and all the negativity that went along with it. You just can’t imagine how that feels. The African American audience has the same incredulous response as the audience at the slam poetry event; one man even asks, “Is this nigger guy serious?” In outlining his sadness at constantly being called “nigger guy” and being reminded of “something lame that happened in his past,” he fails to recognize the experience of African Americans. Randy’s humorously ironic and amnesic attempts at seeking pity from his audience, especially as he donates money to an African American cause, highlight the problem that Kincheloe mentions when discussing the construct of color blindness. By completely failing to recognize the United States’ historical legacy of racism toward African Americans, Randy invalidates these “[d]angerous historical memories,” thereby “[severing] the connection between white people’s contemporary privileged social location with historical patterns of injustice” (176). Kincheloe argues that “[s]uch a socio-historical amnesia [...] assure[s] us that white racism at the end of the twentieth century is rare” but it has not been completely eradicated, and certainly neither have the effects of institutionalized racism (176). Randy’s lamentation that the use of the phrase “‘nigger guy’ [...] bring[s] up a painful chapter of [his] history and all the negativity that went along with it,” juxtaposed with his utter failure to recognize the irony of his statement, forces the viewer to consider whether Randy’s experience is analogous to that of African Americans as well as whether actions that promote social equality for African Americans are even necessary. as peers
ThePortrayalofWhiteAnxietyin SouthPark ’s“WithApologiestoJesseJackson” ‘victimization.’ In many cases involving African Americans, however, there was no such rescue and they had no way to effectively fight against their own victimization. In this scene, the ‘rednecks’ speak to the fact that, while whiteness is indeed a diverse construct and while not every white person has benefited equally from white privilege, even the low economic status of poor whites is not comparable to the African American experience of the violence and inequality associated with institutionalized racism. The scene in Congress is ironic in that, as Randy and the “nigger guys” publicly declare themselves society’s new ‘victims,’ they utilize their access to political power structures to pass legislation designed to benefit them. The very fact that they actually have the power to fundamentally change the law in their favor and are granted a hearing in front of Congress to plead their case calls into question their claimed status as oppressed people. Successfully convincing an incidentally all-white majority of Congress members that the words “nigger guy” could harm them too, the passage of the law prohibiting the use of the phrase should be read as the whites’ attempt to “guard their interests more zealously” (Kincheloe 178) in the face of the perceived threat of being called “nigger guy” rather than as a move to promote social equality. It is quite clear that, rather than being oppressed victims, Randy and the other “nigger guys” actually still “operat[e] at the recesses of power” (164). Meanwhile, white anger, feelings of victimization, and the idea of color blindness are challenged in this sequence as African Americans are still largely unable to truly assert their influence within this political power structure, as portrayed in the scene by the lone African American congressman who unsuccessfully votes against the legislation. The privileged position of whites as well as their utter unawareness of this fact is also underlined by a group of African Americans who have gathered outside and simply look dismayed at the blind irony of the entire situation: whites celebrating a legal victory designed to protect them from a perceived victimization, which they were easily able to obtain by accessing and utilizing political power. In this scene, white anger is ultimately subverted as it becomes clear that white privilege is still a reality today and that the impact of the historical oppression of African Americans has much deeper and far more negative social, economic, and political repercussions than does the superficial annoyance suffered by Randy due to his own mistake. As I have shown, the action in the main plot stems from either white guilt or white anger, both of which are portrayed in a critical manner and are ultimately undermined. as peers
NicoleBinder
ANALYSIS OF THE SUBPLOT
In the first apology scene involving Stan and Token Williams, the following exchange occurs: STAN. Listen, Token, my dad isn’t a racist. He’s just stupid, alright? He just blurted out the n-word, and it’s no big deal, okay? TOKEN. Uh, well, actually it is kind of a big deal, Stan. It may be a mistake, but you don’t understand how it feels when that word comes up. So don’t say it isn’t a big deal. (my emphases) In this dialogue, Stan exhibits a symptom of white guilt marked by a desire to seek forgiveness or acceptance. In her article, Griffin recognizes a number of problems with this variation of white guilt. Contrite feelings stemming from guilt can actually cause whites to lose sight of the fact that institutionalized racism has had a profound effect on African Americans that cannot be intimately understood by whites and to focus instead on obtaining forgiveness from “a Good Negro who will [...] accept them” in order to alleviate having to grapple with “a painful racial consciousness” (Griffin 6). Griffin maintains that this discourse of forgiveness and harmony oftentimes “speaks of [...] a dissolution of racial or gender definitions,” which, ironically, may actually risk deepening racial divisions as African Americans may interpret the white desire of harmony and merging as ignoring or as ‘whitening’ the African American experience of the legacy of racism (6-7). In this scene, Token refuses to accept Stan’s apologies, pointing out that Stan’s nonchalant assumption that his father’s stupidity should lessen the impact of the blow misses the crux of the problem: Regardless of the circumstances in which the word was uttered, Stan does not have access to the same racial legacy or cultural experience that Token does and, thus, cannot understand what it feels like when the n-word is used. Seeking forgiveness motivated by a desire for redemption that is rooted in guilt is rendered invalid by the scene, which is exemplified by Stan’s own assumptions clouding his apology and its motive. In a second apology scene, which takes place after Randy apologizes to Jesse Jackson, Stan again runs into problems with Token and the following exchange takes place: STAN. Hey Token, I just wanted to let you know that everything is cool now. My dad apologized to Jesse Jackson. TOKEN. Oh I see, so I’m supposed to feel all better now. STAN. Well, yeah. TOKEN. You just don’t get it, Stan! STAN. Dude, Jesse Jackson said it’s okay! 60 as peers
