I ain't got jokes, I got problems...

I was listening to NPR's Talk of the Nation after running some errands today, and they had two people on that are part of a show in New York called Old Jews Telling Jokes. The host, Neal Conan was also having listeners call in with their own jokes. I only caught the tail end of it but these were my two favorites:

Q: Why don't WASP's go to orgies?


A: Too many thank you notes to write.

Two Jewish guys were walking down the street. They passed a Catholic church with a big sign out front that said, "Convert to Catholicism and get 50 dollars!" The first guy looked at the second guy and said, "I'm gonna go do that." He went in the church and came out about 20 minutes later. The second guy looked at him and said, "Well, did you get your 50 bucks?!" The first guy looked over and replied,

"Is that all you people think about?"


And this is the joke that I would have called in to share if I had time.

Q: What do you call a black guy flying a plane?


A: A pilot, you racist!

ha ha ha hee hee hee ho ho ho (:

One thing I noticed is how important timing is when telling a joke, because there were a few people who had funny jokes that fell flat because they didn't deliver them all that well.

I also noticed that they only wanted you to call in and share jokes if it was a joke about a group that you were a part of (lawyers telling lawyer jokes, Irish people telling Irish jokes, etc.). That got me thinking a lot, and is what compelled me to write this blog post.

It's obvious why they made that qualifier; because they don't want a bunch of people calling in and telling racist jokes. But it's the radio, so they have no idea if the person calling is actually a member of the said group, but as long as they said they were--it somehow made it okay. It makes sense, I only shared the first two jokes here because a person who claimed to be a WASP and a person who claimed to be Jewish shared them with me.

But is it racist/racish of me to repeat those jokes since I am not a member of either of those groups? Is it racist/racish of me to laugh at those jokes since I am not a member of either of those groups? Was your reaction to the first two jokes different than your reaction to the last one? Why or why not?

I also noticed that while all of the jokes played off of stereotypes, none of the ones that I heard would be what I considered offensive. Like, I know two other jokes about black people. And I would not share them here because I consider them offensive and not that funny. If I were to repeat them, people that aren't black might think that it's okay with me for them to go out and start saying them. I wonder if that was true of all the callers: they know other jokes about their group that they wouldn't share, because they think the jokes cross the line somehow. I also wonder if the TOTN producers were inundated with jokes that they refused to share because they considered them too off-color.

So lots of questions for you, dear readers. The ones I posed above, and...

How much should a person's own group identity influence what they are allowed to say?
How much should a person's intention influence how we respond to what they do or say (i.e. I was only joking)?
Are jokes about groups of people sometimes funny, or should we move beyond such juvenile humor?
Should comedy get a pass, or should we hold comedians to the same standards that we hold others to when it comes to being kind and compassionate? How do we know when people have crossed the line, so to speak?

I am interested to hear your thoughts. And I know I said I would talk more about my stamps post, I haven't forgotten. I also have more to say about #whitepeopleproblems. But you know how it is, sometimes public radio throws a wrench in your well-laid plans.


I'd love to hear what's on your mind, leave me a comment.

You're Fired!

Once when was still in grad school, I was talking to my therapist about how I hated writing papers. The thing that I hated about it was the effort it took to take a list of information and turn that into a paper. Introductions, conclusions, topic sentences, and the like. And don't get me started on APA style. I have often said that much of higher education is a game--forcing people to write in a certain style is one of the best examples of that. Margins, two spaces after a period, italicize this, underline that, and how do you cite websites again? But now I'm getting off on a tangent.

So, in one of our sessions I was telling him how my life would be so much easier if I could just turn in a list of bullet points. He responded by asking me what was keeping me from asking my professors if I could do that? I think he was trying to show me that I had some control in the situation, and that I could stop complaining and take some action. Like most clients, I heard what he said but didn't do anything differently ;) I just continued to soldier through, writing the stupid papers in the stupid APA style, until I got that lovely diploma and got the hell out of there.

But here it is several years later, and I've had a revelation. On my blog, I can do bullet points if I want to! I don't have to ask anyone for permission, and I don't have to let my disdain for finding the perfect transition word keep me from writing about something that's been on my mind for days: the Juan Williams
controversy. So, let's get to it...

--Juan Williams said something like "When I see a person on a plane dressed in Muslim garb, showing that being Muslim is their primary identity--I get scared." NPR fired him soon after. Fox News signed him to a multi-year, 2 million dollar contract soon after that.

--Juan's comment doesn't make logical sense. The people who bombed the U.S. on 9/11 were not wearing what Williams would consider 'Muslim garb.' And even if they were, 19 people dressed a certain way doesn't mean you can come to conclusions about millions of other people who are dressed similarly.

--My understanding of the situation is that Williams was not making this statement proudly. He followed it up by saying that he still gets on the plane, and that he doesn't think the people he is scared of should have to go through extra security. I interpreted his comment as an honest confession of his feelings.

--Part of NPR's justification for his firing is that his role with their organization was as a "news analyst," and with that statement, he was making it difficult for people to distinguish between his opinion and actual fact. Personally, I think a person would have to be pretty obtuse to think that what he said was anything but his personal opinion.

-- Related: I also think it's funny that people in the media think it is even possible to be objective when reporting about pretty much any issue. Anytime a person writes or says anything, it is being influenced in some way by their personal experience. I think the field of journalism would be enhanced if it would acknowledge this fact more, instead of thinking that people are able to be truly neutral, objective, fair or balanced in their reporting.

--Williams' comment bothers me because he is sending yet another message to marginalized people that says, "Hey if you just assimilate--you can be accepted." Don't show pride in your marginalized identity, at least not in a way that is too 'in my face.' I write more about this way of thinking, and why it is harmful here.

--But, Williams simply making the comment doesn't bother me. I think NPR by firing him sends the message, "It's not okay to say you're scared of Muslims. We're not scared of Muslims here at NPR." They're missing an opportunity to explore why he and millions of other people get scared when they see people who look like they follow a certain religion. And what that does and doesn't have to do with 9/11.

--NPR is also being hypocritical because like Patricia Heaton said on The View, if Juan had said he was scared of members of the Tea Party, he would likely still have his job. Basically, NPR gets to decide who it is and isn't okay for Williams to be scared of.

--That last point makes me think of black conservatives Shelby Steele and Clarence Thomas, who make the provocative argument that white liberals are fine with black people--as long as black people agree with them. If black people stop agreeing with them, start having their own ideas, defining problems differently or want to try other solutions--bad things can happen. You can lose your job, be labeled an "Uncle Tom" and/or very quickly fall out of favor. You can read more about these ideas by checking out some books by Steele and Thomas--which are over on the right there under my "read more books" sidebar.

--9th grade civic lesson: this is not an issue of free speech. If Juan had been thrown in jail by the police, or if NPR got more than 2% percent of its funding from the government--we might have a 1st amendment issue on our hands. Free speech and the first amendment only come into play when the government does something to punish someone for what they say...mmmmkay?

--Finally, if you think you're not afraid of Muslims (or gay people, or black people or people in wheelchairs, or some other group that's not exactly like you,) please go here and take some of their nifty tests.

--As per usual, I want to know what you think. Feel free to leave me a comment in whatever style you'd like (bullets, haiku, interpretive dance, etc.)