A Colorful Exposé on a Black and White Matter

Tanya Chan

Being a nation for only a little over two hundred years old – a young age compared to the rest of the world – America has yet to be granted entrance into the kingdom of wisdom. To demonstrate, the all-abiding law of the land promises equal rights for all citizens, yet we still face increasing gaps between the rich and the poor, unequal pay in the workforce between men and women, and even racial segregation in the communities that we live in. It doesn’t quite match up. What’s worse is that a large majority of Americans don’t believe that this is a problem, proof by the lack of legislation or movements to balance this diverse seesaw of issues we have. 

This lack of will to change can be seen in our mass media and “pop culture” – direct representations of what our established citizens believe and what our younger citizens are taught to believe. We can see this in a popular late-night comedy show Saturday Night Live (SNL) episode aired last December. This particular three minute long monologue, aired on NBC, features acclaimed comedian, actor, and musician Jamie Foxx. His monologue title alone “How Black Is That?” alludes to the theme of the comedic sketches to follow his introduction. When talking about a touchy subject such as racism in this post-racial America, it seems that the only way for citizens to be able to comfortably discuss their hallowed history is through humor. Jamie Foxx sparks a conversation about race in America by challenging the symbiotic relationship between systems of privilege and color blindness. Racism has a very colorful story in American history. We have progressed closer to a more equal nation yet true equality is still an American dream far off in the distant future. Racial jokes and colorblindness that circulate through our country make it hard to answer the question of whether or not we are beyond racism or if it is just living a more subtle lifestyle.

Before describing how “systems of privilege” function, it is important to understand what privilege looks like in America.  Allan G. Johnson, author of Power, Privilege and Difference, firstly defines having “privilege” as being “allowed to move through your life without being marked in ways that identify you as an outsider, as exceptional or ‘other’ to be excluded, or to be included but always with conditions” (Johnson, 2006). He further unpacks privilege by quoting Peggy McIntosh, renowned feminist and anti-racist activist famous for her work in women’s studies, for defining privilege as “[existing] when one group has something of value that is denied to others simply because of the groups they belong to, rather than because of anything they’ve done or failed to do” (Johnson, 2006). In our American society, we privilege anyone who can identify as white, male and heterosexual, or more commonly known as “white privilege.” This privilege leads to an unbalanced power structure; if only those who fit in the “white, male and heterosexual” social category receive special benefits then those who don’t fit naturally receive the short end of the stick. Johnson describes this effect as “oppression,” or privilege’s direct adversary. He states that “for every social category that is privileged, one or more other categories are oppressed in relation to it; a group can be oppressed only if there exists another group with the power to oppress them” (Johnson, 2006). In our society, oppression can take the form of being denied an opportunity for a raise because of color or even being cut off in conversation because of gender. Although these actions are rarely intentional, people naturally make judgments upon a person based on first impressions and physical attributes. Unfortunately, our society tends to attribute certain physicalities with social “truths” as well. It is important to note, though, that privilege isn’t something that is rightfully taken – the power accompanied with privilege is bestowed upon by others. One can not simply be privileged – another has to give them that right. Johnson sums it up best when he states that “one of the paradoxes of privilege is that individuals receive privilege only because they are perceived by others as belonging to privileged groups and social categories, not because it has anything to do with who those individuals are as people” (Johnson, 2006). 

Privilege does not take a clear cut shape or form that can be readily identified by the average American. Considering how unequal privilege is, one would think that people would enact change to make things right. However, the matter isn’t that simple. Johnson supplies several reasons as to why privilege still exists in our society. Sometimes people aren’t aware of their privilege and don’t consider how their actions affect others. They rarely consider the good fortune they’re given as anything but good citizenship when in actuality it may be due to stereotypes (Johnson, 2006). He also argues that most people believe oppression is a personal problem, i.e. gay rights should only be fought for by gay people (Johnson, 2006). Others may inherently know they are privileged by others and since they like it, they don’t want to upset the system that enables their current lifestyle. Others may just be completely oblivious to how oppression works and act as the main perpetuators of prejudice. Or people can simply be afraid of changing a model that has taken hundreds of years to look the way it does today. Regardless of the various reasons of why people choose not to un-privilege certain dominant groups, it is a well-oiled system that may take even another century before upgrading to a new interface. Thus these “systems of privilege” that are built from the relationships between privilege and oppression “exist only through social systems and people’s participation in them – people make systems and their consequences happen through paths of least resistance that shape who people are and how they participate” (Johnson, 2006). However hope is not lost; the social system we live in today is not a fixed ideology. We can see historical trends that prove Americans enjoy change and thrive in it. The Civil Rights Movement, women suffrage, and many more key historical events demonstrate just how much America has evolved. The most important point is to recognize that despite the imbalance in our society, progression is happening. 

We have moved into a blind spot for racial progression that binds our ability to talk about race. Buried underneath layers of guilt and denial, we have reached a conclusion that this system of privilege doesn’t exist and that America is not racist. Johnson describes it best when he says that “racist isn’t another word for ‘bad white people,’” which is what a lot of citizens believe it to mean nowadays (Johnson, 2006). The truth is that racism is just another social reality and in order to dispel this cloud of oppression, people have to acknowledge that it exists. However, that is not the case and we have currently cornered ourselves into a colorblind movement. Monnica Williams, Ph.D. in Culturally Speaking and author of Psychology Today article “Colorblind Ideology is a Form of Racism,” defines colorblindness as “the racial ideology that posits the best way to end discrimination by treating individuals as equally as possible, without regard to race, culture, or ethnicity” (Williams, 2011). She argues that colorblindness is not enough to “heal racial wounds” and is only a “half-measure that operates as a form of racism” (Williams, 2011). Considering how heavy and stained our roots are in racism, discrediting centuries of blood, sweat, and tears is just inappropriate. Rich heritages and unique perspectives are deeply embedded in a person’s “color” and being colorblind just undermines different cultures. This complete disregard creates a society where talking about something that “doesn’t exist” equivalent to committing a social faux pas, and “if you can’t talk about it, you can’t understand it, much less fix the racial problems that plague our society”(Williams, 2011).

The relationship between systems of privilege and colorblindness can be explored with the idea of symbiosis. Although symbiosis is a term generally used to describe biological relationships, the concept can be logically applied to sociological relationships and behaviors. Symbiosis is defined as “the interaction process between two different species that start a relationship” and may even “lead to co-evolution” (“Meaning of a Symbiotic Relationship”). The most relevant type of symbiotic relationship that can be clearly seen between systems of privilege and color blindness is the idea of “mutualism” where both species benefit from each other and need the other to survive. Bees and flowers illustrate this concept perfectly as “nectar and pollen are critical elements that ensure the survival of each other” (“Meaning of a Symbiotic Relationship”). Much like how bees and flowers adapt to stay alive by using each other’s parts, the system of privilege and color blindness feed off each other in order to remain on top of our social hierarchy.

Especially since symbiosis is seen as a natural, biological process, we are socialized to believe that the way these two entities interact are completely natural and that’s just the way it is supposed to be. The ideology that is perpetuated to us is pushed through a spectrum of mediums, including family, friends, the media, and public institutions such as schools, churches, and national legislation. We are taught to behave in a certain manner else face negative consequences for violating a “social norm.” One of these public institutions includes organizations and the values ingrained in their corporate culture. For example, diversity training is becoming increasingly common and seen as beneficial but in actuality these mandatory programs foster colorblindness. Carmen Nobel, senior editor of the Harvard Business School Working Knowledge, writes in an article that companies “actively [try] to ignore racial differences when enacting policies and making organizational differences. The logic is simple: if we don’t even notice race, then we can’t act in a racist manner” (Nobel, 2012). Based on a study examining colorblindness and interracial interaction conducted by Michael Norton, an associate professor at the Harvard Business School, they facilitated a matching game between two participants, either white or black, where one participant held a photo and their partner had to determine which photo it was from a stack of thirty-two photographs. Norton conducted this study amongst various age groups and found that white participants were more hesitant in using color as a factor to identify the person in the photo when they were playing with a black participant. Furthermore, “racial colorblindness is a social convention that many Americans start to internalize by as young as age 10” (Nobel, 2012). This is clearly a problem. Norton argues that “attempting to overcome prejudice by ignoring race is an ineffective strategy that in many cases only serves to perpetuate [additional] bias” (Nobel, 2012). However, that is the reality of many diversity programs currently found in the workplace, or public institutions, and they only serve to hinder conversation about race. This silence further nurtures the system of privilege that secretly lurks within our societal structure and makes it more powerful. If this system of privilege is capable of remaining unseen because people refuse to name it, then privileged groups can remain dominant in our social hierarchy and continue to oppress those that are not “white, male, or heterosexual.” Furthermore, if this system continues to exist, then American people will find it only more natural to not talk about race (though it is physically impossible to ignore it) and remain colorblind to the rest of this vibrant world. It is a symbiotic relationship at best that only serves to legitimate once again the hegemony that rings over our country.

Another way to see how this symbiotic relationship thrives in our culture is through the media and pop culture. An article from the University of Texas Austin writes that “popular culture [has the ability to] offer a broad range of opportunities for shaping the ongoing development of politics and political culture” which in turn shapes the vehicles that determine our social structure ("Popular Culture and Political Socialization"). This is because “entertainment media constantly engage the political debates of the day and provoke political course” ("Popular Culture and Political Socialization"). However, only if the content is relevant to the public, then can “political implications or resonance register historical changes in society and the body politic. Popularity and currency are often linked” ("Popular Culture and Political Socialization"). It is no surprise, then, when comedy shows such as Saturday Night Live make such an impact on our society and have the power and opportunity to unearth the roots of many political movements. Since its inception in 1975, SNL has received a number of accolades to prove its comedic success. On top of their ability to consistently make their audience laugh, their extensive reach to the American people arguably makes them “the most pervasive influence on the art of comedy in contemporary culture NBC” (“NBC”). While in season, SNL reaches millions of people per episode. This mere exposure is exponential to consider. Just like journalists do in our news, Saturday Night Live writers have the power to set the agenda. They do not necessarily tell us what to think but do tell us what to think about. SNL is known for pushing the boundaries of what normally shows on national television, as seen by the assortment of sketches SNL provides, ranging from jabs at specific celebrities, stereotyping porn stars, stabs at popular shows like Desperate Housewives, and most popularly, political satires (Reid, 2012). Similar to how what we read in the news is a reflection of perceived public opinion, pop culture functions in the same way. Since SNL writers cater to their audience and create sketches based on what they perceive them to like, the importance of the monologue appearing on a pop culture medium provides a fairly accurate representation of how our society as a whole views these issues. In this case, it reinforces the societal framework that surrounds America and reaffirms how the consumer should respond to race.

Jamie Foxx’s most recent episode upsets the American societal framework by making white people feel guilty for being privileged using humor as a guise to do so. In the December 8, 2012 episode, Jamie makes his grandiose entrance onstage and delves into his monologue by igniting a train of racial slurs with “I’m black, and I’m dressed all black because it’s good to be black. Black is the new white” (“Jamie Foxx Monologue”). To continue on how good it is to be black, he tells the audience that “the Nets moved to Brooklyn. How black is that? You got black jerseys, black court, I mean, how black is that? And Jay-Z is the owner, a rapper, how black is that?” (“Jamie Foxx Monologue”). These comments are made on the assumption that the audience knows that being “black” has certain ordaining characteristics that are accepted from the general population. However, he doesn’t stop there. He continues by making jabs at the greatest black icon in America – President Obama. He brands Obama’s re-election as “black” by using the fact that Obama was “playing basketball during the Election Day” and was “late for his acceptance speech” as proof of evidence (“Jamie Foxx Monologue”). He further labels Obama’s “white” half as “President Barry Gibb Obama” and uses his ‘white’ dancing on The Ellen Show as validation. Foxx also counters that these next four years of Obama’s term will be the “black” side of “President Barack Dikembe Mutombo Tupac Mandela Hussein Obama X” (“Jamie Foxx Monologue”). The first name is to highlight what an average “white” name would sound like, as the latter name is to pay homage to black leaders in our time, both good and bad. The monologue ends musically where Foxx plays on the piano and welcomes 2 Chainz, a black rapper, to come on stage. This last bit remains fairly neutral in regards to racial humor although the content still revolves around a “black” theme. However, the most controversial portion of Foxx’s monologue centers around his reference to his new movie, Django Unchained. He throws a plug after his Jay-Z comment and continues with racial humor by announcing “I play a slave. How black is that? And in the movie, I have to wear chains. How whack is that? But don’t be worried about that because I get out of the chains, I get free, I save my wife, and I kill all the white people in the movie. How great is that? And how black is that?” (“Jamie Foxx Monologue”). This comment about “killing white people” set off millions of viewers and garnered a lot of negative attention and reviews for both Foxx and Saturday Night Live.

When Foxx references his role in Django Unchained, he seamlessly resurfaces the evil and guilt-ridden memories of slavery. People tend to sweep things under the rug because it makes them feel uncomfortable or they feel like they are not associated because they were not directly involved. Foxx opens up the realm of awkward conversation by connecting a 150 year old problem to the present. He implicitly argues that the issues with race today aren’t too far off the issues with race in the 19^th century, just underneath a different ruse. The argument that white people in particular are still treating black people unfairly and hold different privileges juxtaposed against the horrible images and memories associated with slavery is quite the sharp contrast. It places white people as the enemy and arguably the source of the problem. Everybody likes being the hero in their own story so when Foxx throws white people under the bus for the reasons why our world is so distorted, he is essentially throwing our world’s problems into their face. Foxx took the extra step against colorblindness and committed a social taboo by actually starting a conversation about it – he named it and put it on a pedestal. He changed the game the moment he named “whiteness.” Much like Pandora’s box, when Foxx talked about racial differences in our country, a stream of emotions emerged stemming from surprise, guilt, or even denial.

The multitude of mean and racially charged comments that appeared shortly after this specific episode aired reaffirm that systems of privilege and colorblindness dually operate undercover. These two entities are in disguise shown by the number of highly offended watchers who refused to believe that white privilege even exists in this country. None of the negative comments posted discredited the stereotypes and power structure that Foxx argues exist. They definitely didn’t like the racist references, but they didn’t argue its truth. For example, some of the comments posted on the SNL Facebook page include “I watch SNL every week, have done it since the Belucci years, but last night’s show was the worst ever. What a disgusting rant against whites last night. Cool to be black?? Fool, I say” and “Should have taken Foxx’s comment as black being the new white as a warning for how the show was going to be, way too black for this white guy… Worst SNL ever, hope it isn’t the new trend” (Kurp, 2012). These comments don’t argue the ‘truth’ of the stereotypes that reinforce white privilege and only focus on the attack against whites – similar to the majority of comments that populate the internet. The makeup of this audience is arguably those who still believe America is a racially equal society. The anger stems from their entitlement with white privilege being uprooted and being brought to light. People always try to identify with the protagonist so when that objective was hindered, they rejected this idea of dominant white culture by deflecting the antagonist role to Foxx claiming reverse racism.  Their negative reactions are a product of disbelief and refusal to believe in an America that is non-progressive and racist that cast them as the proponents of this reality.

These behaviors are a result of attempting to get off the hook by acting in denial and resistance. Johnson names these defense mechanisms by seven common actions – deny and minimize, blame the victim, call it something else, it’s better this way, it doesn’t count if you don’t mean it, I’m one of the good ones and being sick and tired (Johnson, 2006). In the context of Jamie Foxx, those under the influence of an “all equal” America denied that privilege exists, blamed Foxx for propelling negative ideologies, called it reverse racism, and claimed the topic of racism as old news, among many other comments. It’s no surprise that people employ defense mechanisms when accused of being wrong. It’s also no surprise that people don’t even realize they’re wrong because our society does not allow for the problem to be talked about. A large part of why this problem continues to be shrugged off is because white Americans in particular feel like they are being personally attacked and directly blamed for the problems of the world. However, a large distinction needs to be made clear – white Americans as individuals are not the provocateurs of racial injustice. The systems at play that fuel a colorblind ideology that reinforce white Americans as the privileged group is what’s to blame and every single individual, regardless of race, is involved in keeping the switched turned on just by being a part of this very society.

Clearly there is a lot to be divulged about what racism really means in America, but unfortunately there is no clear answer on how to solve the problem. The system of privilege is empowered through the diverse array of people who participate in it. This includes the large majority of people who refuse to talk about racism because they were told not to. Their reluctance to speak brings racial inequality full circle. This reality is packaged into a symbiotic relationship that fosters greater resistance to change if it continues to grow stronger. However, the minority of people that refuse to participate in the system of privilege by talking about race have not given up. Although the future looks meek, artists like Jamie Foxx who dare step in the gray area of race conversation slowly brings color back into the world. Thousands of literature about race relations and privilege has spawned, reaching more and more citizens each day. It is the changemakers, like Foxx, who are not afraid to be heard that spark the conversations of difference. Although not all conversations can be facilitated for positive change, at least the conversation is being had. Peoples’ individual backgrounds should be celebrated, not hidden, regardless of what culture they belong to. Most importantly, though, this problem is connected to all of us. We cannot escape the problems of society if we live in it – it is people like Jamie Foxx who put themselves out there and inspires others to take their lead, whether it starts with a whisper or a shout. We may not be near our end destination of racial equality, but people like Foxx reassure us that the journey is definitely not over.

Works Cited

"About the Show." NBC. Web. 7 Feb 2013. <http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/about/>.

"Jamie Foxx Monologue." Saturday Night Live. NBC: New York City, 08 DEC 2012. Television. <http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/jamie-foxx-monologue/n30733/>.

Kurp, Josh. "'Worst Episode Ever': People Are Furious At Jamie Foxx's SNL For All The Wrong Reasons."UpRoxx. Warming Glow, 10 DEC 2012. 20 Feb 2013. <http://www.uproxx.com/tv/2012/12/people-are-furious-at-last-nights-snl-for-all-the-wrong-reasons/>.

Nobel, Carmen. "The Case Against Racial Colorblindness."Working Knowledge. Harvard Business School, 13 FEB 2012. Web. <http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6919.html>.

"Popular Culture and Political Socialization." Texas Politics. University of Texas at Austin. <http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu/10_3_2.html>.

Reid, Joe. "The Ten Best Saturday Night Live Sketches of 2012." Vulture. 12 Dec 2012. Web. 7 Feb 2013. <http://www.vulture.com/2012/12/ten-best-snl-sketches-of-2012.html>.

"Symbiotic Relationship." The Meaning of a Symbiotic Relationship. N.p.. Web. 17 Mar 2013. <http://symbioticrelationship.org/the-meaning-of-a-symbiotic-relationship/>.

Williams, Monica. "Culturally Speaking." Psychology Today. Psychology Today, 27 DEC 2011. Web. <http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/colorblind/201112/colorblind-ideology-is-form-racism>.