Racism in 'The Office'

Racism has moved from being overt, for example; images of white people painting their faces rather than using black people themselves. Currently, it is possible to witness more inferential or subtle racism through using the ‘white eye’ in films and stereotyping for cultural short hands to gain a brief understanding of the character. This is still a negative and unfair representation of minorities, so why do White American directors/producers use stereotyping and clear-cut racism for satire? To me, it seems that they may believe ‘Blacks’ have dealt with it. Maybe it is no longer a sore spot and they are ready to all have a laugh together at the black races expense. When we watched the video in today’s lecture of Louis CK joking about how with every year that goes on, white people add another hundred years to when slavery ended. I actually believe there is some truth to this.

As I was watching the American version of The Office a few weeks ago, it became clear to me that the amount of racism and stereotypes directed at Stanley (the only black man in the office) are over the top. From his appearance – the big lips, droopy eyes, overweight figure, his deep voice and slow talking, to the jokes made about him. Even when it appears he is having his say, the script is written to include him complaining about something. It is a comedy and meant to be funny, but I believe it is really just perpetuating and encouraging racism. I will post a link at the end to a Youtube video with the ‘best’ moments of Stanley. I found it interesting that in a video where he gets angry at Michael (the boss) the second most popular comment included “you can mess with a hot white girl but you can’t mess with a sassy hot tempered black man”. They have just confirmed that racism is acceptable, and people liked that. It almost seems as if the way Stanley is being made mockery of is empowering them.

Due to Stanley being the only Black man on the show, his stereotyped character is the only form of representation of the Black race. I believe through satire, the White race is still trying to enforce their dominant position. Whiteness is natural in The Office, and Stanley, the only Black man is ‘The Other’.

The Office – Best of Stanley:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIiMt9GgyDY

Underbelly Land of The Long White Cloud

Last night on TV3 a new television show featured, Underbelly of The Long Green Cloud. I was intrigued to watch this show as I was unaware of the large drug industry in New Zealand during this time. However, what intrigued me more was the characters and the casting that were visible within the show. Although the show is based upon real life events its casting perhaps reveals more about real life New Zealand at this time.

The two detectives who feature in this show are both of white origin. Along with these two characters the head of police is also a white character. This shows the idea that authority and the law-abiding citizen is the white character and not the Maori or "Other" character.

As the episode progressed so too did the introduction of more characters. The character who is typcast as the "baddie" ripping all the drug dealers off is typecast as the character of "Chinese Jack". For no other character in this series has the race of the character been put before the name of the character. Would it not be just as effective to name the character "jack" who is played by a chinese actor?

Further, the head of the operation "Marty" Johnstone is also an intriguing character. That is he is perpetrated to be a white middle class man who through being business savvy has come to lead the organized crime unit centered around marijuana distribution. Interestingly, none of those featured as trusted by Marty are of any racial colour. However, the women, who are never to be trusted as they sleep around and are apparently more likely to shed information/gossip from within are shown as Maori.

It is hard to argue that racial stereotypes are not still deeply imbedded in the audience when new productions feature them as an easy assumption of the audiences knowledge.

Scapegoats on London bridge!

There has been a lot of news about the riots in London lately, because I didn’t know too much about it, I googled it.

I found lots of links and videos about the chaos that had been taking place, and many reports about the devastation, especially on unsuspecting victims, shop owners among them. After reading a couple and having a mixture of feelings about it, I came across an article on Reuters. The blurb had “young, lacking opportunity, angry at the system and organising phenomenally fast over social media, London's rioters showed some of the same characteristics as the pro-democracy demonstrators of the "Arab Spring".

I was confused and shocked about this. Amidst all of the terrible acts people of London are doing, to themselves, the media is still able to link the aggressive acts to Arabs. I was amazed that they were even able to make that kind of a link, and still where no Arab peoples were involved (by which I mean those that live in the ‘middle’ and ‘far’ east not Arabs who may reside in London).

It felt almost like they are deflecting part of the badness by being like “Yeah this is bad but oh well the Arabs did it first” as if they are blaming them for the actions of a few people in London. Once again vilifying and reinforcing the stereotype of the “bad Arab”, whilst not saying “bad British people”. Associating the Arab people with the riots, violence, and destruction because that sort of thing just makes sense to pair together, and ‘they do things like this all the time’. Contrasting the reports, that this is a first for London, and it is unusual for this kind of violence to occur and for it to escalate. It is easier for the white community to see the Arabs as at fault, without having to confront any issues in their own communities. And when compared to the Arabs, nothing seems as bad, they have become the scapegoat for all violent and semi destructive acts.

It is easy for me to see the white eye peering into the words of this article. Shame on you Reuters!