Why I am here? It's a beautiful sunny day outside and I'm hiding in the air-conditioned library of NIE after my morning classes. The reason? Because (unlike at Melbourne University) if one started sunbathing on the lawn of your university campus (no matter how beautiful the weather), the head librarian would likely appear like Mother Superior with ants in her habit and tell you to cover up. Actually, sometimes it seems like if you showed so much as the top of your ankle around the library, you'd get raised eyebrows. Besides, it's now winter in Melbourne so I doubt I'd go sunbathing.
Today it’s going to be a rant; everyone put your helmets on because there’s going to be some fire in the hold.
*helmet on*
My quibble today is primarily about the Canadian TV stand-up comedian, Messr Russel Peters.
Lest it be said that I don’t try to give him a fighting chance, here’s a link to his 45-minute video available online on the internet.
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/000481.html
I should also alert readers to the fact that Mr Peters is wildly popular among his fans (or they wouldn’t be fans now would they?) and, in general, has proven his ability to make people from a wider diversity of English-speaking backgrounds laugh. Laughter per se is not a bad thing, I’m just worried about the subject of the humour.
“Oh Ben, you’re being a stick in the mud, a kill joy and a wet blanket”.
Yea, perhaps I am. But I find it in very poor taste to poke fun at ethnic groups’ peculiarities by exaggerating stereotypes and exploiting the school-yard bully complex. It's encouraging them to laugh at how other people are different from you (and thus become fair subject for ridicule). Is there ever a justified reason to belittle another person or group of people based on their differences from the commentator, even for the 'noble' purpose of humour? It might begin with humour, but when a subject becomes fair game for crude humour, our respect for that subject is diminished. With the lessening of respect for a subject, it gradually becomes more acceptable to progress from poking fun at it, to ridiculing it, to humiliating it, to condemning it. A lack of respect breeds ignorance, which breeds intolerance.
The twentieth century is rich in tragic examples of what intolerance, taken to extremes, can do to communities. That said, intolerance does not need to be taken to such extremes to do harm. The individual who is excluded from the playground game because they have big ears, green eyes, are good at science or who speak with an accent is no less hurt by intolerance than the minority group in any structured place who are subjected to the progressive nomenclature which goes:
“you have no place here, because you are different; because you are different, you are a lesser being; because you are a lesser being, your life is worth *less*; because your life is *worthless*, you [ultimately] do not deserve life”
There are defenses made in favour of Peters’ position. I’m not saying that his actions are indefensible though, no- that is not giving him credit for being humourous to some people. Still, none of the counter-arguments I’ve been able to find have held much water with me.
The ironic equality defence
“He’s equally insulting to every race / group, so it’s okay”.
In my opinion, that makes things even worse!
The premise behind this argument is to hide behind the façade of equality while perpetuating the same injustices to an even greater number of undeserving recipients, potentially encouraging uncritical audiences (especially impressionable ones) to see the world in stereotypes AND regard such stereotypes as acceptable subjects for disrespect.
The pyrric victory defence
“He even pokes fun at himself / his own group / his own race, so it’s okay”
Half a mark here; If someone subject others to a particular treatment but not themselves to that same treatment, we would clearly see the discrimination there.
However, where the treatment is a damaging one, is there virtue in priding the fact that one self-flagellates in the interest of fairness? One premise states that a respect for others first begins with a respect for the self. In romantic, humanistic thought, the individual is worthy of respect and their unique qualities are to be celebrated in the interest of human diversity and progress. Have we fallen so far in this brave new world of Materialism, MTV, MacDonalds and Mobile Phones that we feel that the individual’s sense of self esteem is no longer important? Or is it just that I'm stuck with outdated ideals from a bygone age and will be doomed to a life of bitter cynisicm, still a virgin at age 55 and (still) getting fat eating corn chips while reading Sir Walter Scott in bed? *sobz*
The laugh-doctor defence
“He makes people laugh, laughing is good for the soul, we should let people laugh where they can, cos the world sux. [so it’s okay]”
I’ll concede that we probably don’t laugh enough in our world today. I certainly know I don’t laugh enough myself; I am the one often accused of walking around with a steel rod firmly embedded somewhere in my anatomy. Good as the therapy of laughing may be though, I feel that there is an equal trap of becoming careless, callous and reckless in the topics we allow ourselves to derive humorous pleasure from.
Other rant on Reality TV
In an age of reality-television and extreme entertainment, do we allow ourselves to chuckle at the orchestrated situations on television, staged for our amusement (and the showbiz benefits to those ‘lucky’ participants) and then let those same paradigms of what is acceptable carry over from reality-television to reality itself?
Viewers hang on with nail-biting tension to the bitching, plotting and scheming of the Survivor series of shows. Were we not celebrating a failure to dialogue? Did the show itself not indicate an attitude that “there can be no mutual victory, it someone must be excluded from this group”. In today's era where the ability to dialogue to resolve disagreements and seeking a common victory is so important, I must question the practice of gleefully anticipating the next chance to see someone deliberately and systematically excluded from a group whose existence and hitherto existence depended on their team work, trust and co-operation. We are telling our children that it is better to get rid of part's that don't work as a first measure rather than to fix our own problems, even [and especially?] when those problems are inter-personal in nature.
Big Brother brought the ugliness of human cohabitation to the public eye and we in society lapped it up, not because we were strangers to domestic disputes or ugly household disagreements, but perhaps because we allowed ourselves to feel better about our own failings in life by consoling ourselves that others had the same problems too; and that made it all ok. No need to solve our problem then, because other people are just like us, and because everyone’s the same, that’s the way the world is, can’t change the world.
American / Singapore / Martian / Geriatric Idol is my pet peeve; we celebrate and fete the victors while ridiculing those who (for various reasons) were not chosen to progress further. Are we sending the message to impressionable viewers that victors should be worshipped while those who fell by the wayside are scum? That’s exactly the message that the scathing and ad hominem commentary from Idol judges sends. Never mind that those who didn’t score first place practiced just as hard as the winners, invested as much personal passion into the process or put their self-esteem on the line any less than those who won. It might well be that some people can’t carry a tune in a bucket (and, to be fair, some really can’t) but that does not and should not grant a judge (a so-called professional in the field) to engage in derogatory, almost insulting deconstruction of a contestant’s performance.
“All in the name of entertainment”, so the saying goes. “No hard feelings [really], it’s just for the TV ratings”
If the ‘standard’ of a civilisation is measured by the kinds of leisure and entertainment activities engaged in by its citizens, then we have all failed. Failed dismally. We aren’t feeding Christians to the Lions and charging $12 a seat for it ($8.50 for student concession and $6 on Tuesday afternoons!), but- call me a stick in the mud if you must- I have to believe that a genteel society is something that we can strive for… and achieve!!