Racism: Reduced to the Small Screen

Incident, Reaction, Forget, Repeat: Formulaic Entertainment Replaces Serious Discussion on Race

By DeNeen L. Brown and Darryl Fears

Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, November 11, 2007; Page M01

Has racial conflict become amusement? Is the conversation about racism mere entertainment, dialogue rendered for show, inflammatory words tossed back and forth over a racial divide to excite an audience?

Thousands of black people are marooned after Hurricane Katrina amid government paralysis, and the race debate on TV kicks into overdrive. A black woman accuses some white men of rape at a Duke University party and the inflamed rhetoric flies.

Comedian Michael Richards shouts the N-word at a black man in a comedy club. Radio host Don Imus calls the Rutgers University women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos."

Shouts of injustice fill the small-town streets of Jena, La., after white teens are suspended from school for hanging nooses from a tree while black teens are charged with attempted murder for a schoolyard fight. Nooses are found at the University of Maryland, the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, Columbia University.

Fox News's Bill O'Reilly has his turn on the stage of race after dining at a famous soul food restaurant and musing at the surprising civility of black people. Then comes James D. Watson, Nobel Prize winner and head of one of the world's leading genetics research institutes, questioning the intelligence of black people.

And with each episode in the long-running Saga of Race in America, a string of characters lines up to react to the latest eruption. The media records them as they take up positions in the Great Race Debate. The media stokes the discussion as self-proclaimed black leaders scream outrage while opponents -- often white, sometimes black -- scream counter-outrage. The "colorblind" wonder why we all just can't get along. And the rest of us watch from ringside, rooting for one camp or another, sometimes in silence.

Then inevitably, the media turns away. The outrage fades. The talking heads go silent. The curtain falls, and the debate recedes to wherever it goes until the next eruption.

Which raises the question: Has the debate over race become a melodrama? A bad television soap opera? A theatrical stage play with complex issues boiled down to a script? Entertaining words thrown around simply to satisfy the 24-hour news cycle, the blogosphere?

Are we doomed to debate racism over and over -- stuck in purgatory, a cycle of skirmishes, of shock and awe, with nothing gained, nothing learned?

Or is there a way to change the ritual, to go deeper into our national consciousness and get off this merry-go-round?

'Putting On a Show'

---

There it was on television one afternoon, another episode in the Great Race Debate. A perky commentator moderated the banter between two intellectuals discussing the Jena 6 case and the debate over racial injustice.

Even with the sound off, it looked like entertainment, says Alan Bean, executive director of Friends of Justice, a Texas-based criminal justice reform organization that began probing the Jena 6 case long before it became big news. Bean was watching the show while sitting in an airport. That's when it occurred to him: The race debate had become theater.

CONTINUED

The jailing of Black America

Solomon Moore, du New York Times, était en reportage dans les rues de Salisbury, en Caroline du Nord, quand il s’est fait menotter par la police.
Il était justement venu faire un article sur la brutalité de la police anti-gangs.
Il voyait comme un avantage le fait d’être africain-américain dans un quartier où les blancs sont rares.

Le reporter était en train d’interroger les jeunes traînant dans les rues de cette ville de 30.000 habitants, lesquels étaient méfiants…
- What’s the New York Times is doing down here ?
Quand les forces de l’ordre ont débarqué.

Dans son article, il raconte son arrestation.
Les menottes sont trop serrées, proteste-t-il.
- “They’re not meant for comfort,” répond le policier.
Après vérifications, on lui rend ses papiers sans un mot d’excuses. Le chef lui dit qu’il n’a pas le droit de rester là.
- “This is a dangerous area. You can’t just stand out here. We have ordinances.”
Solomon proteste: en Amérique, on a le droit de parler à qui on veut où on veut.
-“Sir, this is the South. We have different laws down here”, s’entend-il répondre.

Après l’incident, il espère au moins s’être assuré la confiance des jeunes qu’il interrogeait.
Pas du tout.
- “Si on leur avait parlé comme ça, dit un jeune en lui tournant le dos. On serait déjà en prison“.

Sur le même sujet, lire l’excellente tribune d’Orlando Patterson dans le même New York Times.
Le sociologue se félicite que la communauté africaine-américaine se mobilise enfin contre ce qu’il appelle “le goulag vituel de l’incarcération raciale”.
Deux millions de citoyens en prison, dont la moitié sont Noirs (alors qu’ils ne représentent que 13 % de la population)
- “How, after decades of undeniable racial progress, did we end up with this virtual gulag of racial incarceration”? demande-t-il.
Il met en cause le système pénal qui focalise sur la répression plus que la réhabilitation.
Mais aussi l’état des familles dans la communauté africaine-américaine.
Les femmes sont mal traitées. Elles sont insultées, battues, an nom d’une culture hip-hop prétendument cool.
- “These events all point to something that has been swept under the rug for too long in black America: the crisis in relations between men and women of all classes and, as a result, the catastrophic state of black family life, especially among the poor”.

Photos: Chris Keane

Blog Big Picture