Progressivists have, for decades, placed themselves in the path of social injustice in valiant efforts to eradicate racism from America’s past, present, and future. They have, with unwavering passion and unmatched stamina, fought the residual prejudices that have thus far failed to fade from American society since the conclusion of the American Civil War. Whilst optimists would contend that racism has largely been defeated to the outskirts of society: the sticks of Georgia, the boondocks of Louisiana, or maybe simply the stray comments from an uncle that visits home once a year; realists maintain that the often-subtle traces of racism throughout contemporary American culture are dangerously still prevalent. Shootings, police brutality, abuse, and an unwavering social divide are all testaments to America’s current social state. Needless to say, changes must be made in order to include all parties in the privileges that living in the United States brings. 

The valiant efforts of activists over the years have taken many forms: marches, demonstrations, protests, sit-ins, riots, speeches, and boycotts. The efforts of activists have increased by nearly 60% since 2014 alone (Pecorin) and are expected to show drastic increases by the conclusions of 2017. One cannot review the efforts of anti-racism activists in the past decade without remarking on the progress they’ve made. So, it’s true that progressivists have succeeded in gaining massive support throughout the past few years as shown by: the Women’s March, Black Lives Matter, and the ANTIFA. Since the Charlottesville white-supremacist clash with ANTIFA protestors, ANTIFA alone has gained two thousand new, subscribed members (Cammeron) and activists to support their cause. Regardless of one’s personal opinions on the ANTIFA movement, the program’s growth is largely representative of many left-wing groups’ rise in popularity. In relation to the statistically great increases in membership to said groups, this paper has been written to propose an alternate idea to enact social change through a new venue, with new ideas, and with a hopefully more effective outcome. I, as an honest writer, am not going to attempt to discredit the work of past social movements, but I will claim that the current pace to uprooting racism in America isn’t effective enough in relation to the pace that prejudices are gaining strength through: the reestablishment of the KKK, the formation of various white’s supremacists groups, and the growing global fear of Islamic culture. While I am an optimist, I cannot deny the fact that white-supremacist groups “[have] risen [in membership] 17% since 2014, to 917 organizations” (Cammeron) which is an unfortunately response to the increase in left-wing activists. I contend that the use of racism in comedy may be supplemental to shortcomings of other demonstrative tactics employed to end social prejudices. 

Comedy is a unique aspect of society that has traditionally been used solely for entertainment purposes. Very few aspects of human society have the power to transcend social, economic, and cultural barriers like comedy. Whether it be standup, scripted, or just a typical joke, comedy has the power to unite an audience of varying backgrounds. Famous rhetors have made millions a year by writing, choreographing, and performing skits that range in subjects from politics to puppies. In theory, the purpose of comedy is to entertain, but in the proper setting comedy has a particularly interesting byproduct: generating unity amongst a crowd. Strangers sitting next to each other leave as friends after hours of communal laughter. Newfound friends can share that similar experience as a memory for life in the form of a skit or joke, and be that much closer together as a result. Though there is a surplus of logical reasoning as to why racism should not be used in comedy, the need for a new, innovative medium to ignite social change at a faster pace calls for the introduction of comedic racism to American rhetors’ work in a proper, wholesome fashion.

It’s a reasonable belief that to allow racism to be used by comedians in a nonchalant manner would only strengthen its position in American culture and inflict long term effects on future generations that grow up numb to the reality of racism. Naturally, children and teens are impressionable to their environment which extends to consistent exposure to the prejudices of their families. It is unfortunate that, “…many parents make the mistake of trying to exert power and control over their teen” (Lohmann) while their children still remain in this impressionable mindset. What this means in a practical sense is that, especially for teens raised under parents with radical political views, teens can’t formulate their own stances because of constant, aggressive encroachments by their home environment. In a similar regard, teens exposed to comedic racism could, reasonably so, fall victim to misconstruing a comedian’s rhetorical purpose. Despite the rhetor’s theoretically intentions, an impressionable teen could be led to believe that using such racism so nonchalantly is socially acceptable. Which, in an improper rhetorical situation, is absolutely untrue. So, absolutely, it’s a fair statement to say that to encourage the use of comedic racism would be detrimental to society. Teens would be put at risk of being desensitized to the material, and thus believe that it’s acceptable to use racism in an inappropriate situation.

Furthermore, if one were to standardize racism in a comedic setting they would inherently leave minorities at risk of severe social misrepresentation and appropriation without proper representation. Unfortunately, minorities have always been persecuted by comedians because of cultural differences that are deemed as quality material for comedy despite the times. It’s commonly known that most stereotypes are formed because of misconceptions about different cultures; but nonetheless, “stereotypes exist because there's always some truth to stereotypes. Not always, but often” (Jobrani), and those truths are often weaponized in comedy. If it weren’t for comedy, stereotypes would be significantly less hurtful to the minority; and as a truthful comment on someone’s culture is acceptable, to add sarcasm or any comedic tools would be to directly attack that aspect of one’s culture. So, it’s a logical assertion that to encourage the use of racism in comedy would only further the existing bombardments that many cultures receive from comedic rhetors. 

Another valid fear is that, beyond the furthering of harmful stereotypes, comedic racism could be used by manipulative rhetors to utilize scape-goat tactics in efforts to unify racially diverse audiences against a common, lesser relatable culture. If a comedian wanted to unite an audience of America’s two most prominent races: Caucasians and African Americans, he or she may try to aim jokes at Vietnamese, Kazakhstani, Serbian, or Islamic culture, to name a few. In 2011, a prominent argument by Conservatives stated that President Obama “blamed, attacked, indicted, and accused…” (Krauthammer) Republicans for the economic situation that encompassed America as a scapegoat, or a third party means of removing blame from oneself, so to expand his political agenda. For a comedian to do the same onto a minority without proper representation in American society could spell decades of untrue but solidified stereotypes. For that reason, comedic racism should, understandably, remain absent from comedy in America.

It’s imperative that, while considering whether or not comedic racism has any potential to end racism in the United States, to reflect on the moral dilemma of doing so. There are some arguments that simply do not need outside support, proofs, or analysis because some assertions have universal repercussions that every reader can understand. Despite America’s social situation, despite the longevity of the fight against racism, despite the hatred still brewing in millions’ hearts, and despite the absolute need to end this growing crisis; should we, as beings capable of sympathy, allow ourselves to encourage racism in popular culture? Regardless of intentions, there will forever be the argument that racism is evil and it is evil that must be expelled, not just altered in use. To consider encouraging racism for any reason is a hefty moral dilemma for a person. 

One must be able to first recognize the effects that racism has on the population before one can formulate any kind of plan to combat it. Racism is comparable to Play-Doh. Throughout history, racism has taken various forms in various different scopes: overwhelming normality during the civil rights movements of the twentieth century, problematic professional divides of the twenty-first century, and even the rhetorical failures of popular figures today. The history of racism in America reflects that, “…racism has not managed to harden. It has had to renew itself, to adapt itself, to change its appearance. . .” (Fanon 32). Yet, to try to stop a pliable evil, one must understand its nature. Racism affects society immensely at a given point, as one can observe through examples in every era of American history: the civil rights movement sparked immense backlash from white supremacist groups like the KKK; America today finally recognizes the reality of the wage gap between races and yet no change has come about; and finally, rhetorical failures on live television often receive only mild repercussions. Those who seek supplemental methods of enacting social reform in America must understand this fact and strive to create an ideology that is methodical, timely, and proper in relation to the current rhetorical situation. Otherwise, it is likely doomed to failure. 

Regardless of how racism is ended, there is a communal agreement by millions of Americans today that this epidemic must be ended after centuries of undermining our morals as a society. How to go about ending racism is subjective to one’s beliefs, skill sets, and short-term goals; yet, the only constant is that it must be done. Activists today have done a magnificent job at protesting racism in America. They protest with purpose, dedication, and a certain passion that is undoubtedly inspiring. Protests have, over the last century, led to the abolishment of slavery, the enactment of African Americans’ right to vote, desegregated America, and even have succeeded in overcoming racial sentiment to support putting an African American in office. Despite these monumental achievements, my personal opinion believes that America’s growing divide regarding civil rights cannot wait another century to achieve its ultimate goal of ending racism in America. It is a situation that must be accelerated to ensure that our society does not crumble in upon itself.

It is important to note, as well, that much of the comedic racism platform relies on one key aspect to be successful: a proper rhetor, and without an appropriate source of comedic racism the entire platform becomes obsolete. Already the American comedy industry has fine examples of successful rhetors using comedic racism in their comedy; Jobrani ranking amongst the best. Those who use the right tone, have the appropriate record, demographics, and are charismatic enough, best exemplify the rhetor required to bring together an audience by the use of comedic racism to reveal common flaws. For instance, a reasonable concern would be that people like Bill Maher, the talk show host, would abuse the use of racism in actually racist ways. Maher was ridiculed for saying on live television, “’I’m a house nigger’… Immediately, he told the audience that he was joking,” (Morris) and sparked concern over his lack of censorship with such harsh diction. There is a staunch difference between using racist jokes to unify an audience and using racist words or phrases to add unnecessarily graphic tones to jokes. It is a divide that is, understandably, a bit thin for comfort. Nonetheless, it is a risk that is justifiable if the intentions and presentations are sound. 

While there is significant, sensible support against the use of comedic racism as a tool for social reform, one must consider that the difference between success and failure of said plan is based around the use of an appropriate rhetor. The burden put onto the rhetor would be substantially more laborious as one walks a very, very fine line when using racism in a comedic sense especially with such emphasis on its purpose. Failure to convey diligent, wholesome assertions using racism could spell the end of one’s career in entertainment. That is why only certain rhetors should, and could, be trusted with spearheading the movement that is comedic racism. Maz Jobrani, a famed Iranian-American comedian, demonstrates the exact specifications that are needed to help successfully enact social change through racism in comedy. He is an immigrant which is not necessary, but his degree of understanding for having that perspective means that he can relate to minorities as well as Caucasians more universally. Secondly, Jobrani was raised from a low-class family of immigrants that saw him through financial, legal, and social problems as is typical with many immigrant families coming to the United States. With these attributes, Jobrani is able to make jokes regarding Trump’s travel ban such as “luckily, I’ll be safe in the US… but [my] cousin has got to go” (Jobrani) or he can even guess a Chinese woman’s name as being “Chi Yang” when it is revealed to be “Stephanie.” These are mildly racially charged jokes that, given by a different rhetor, may just fall flat as being insensitive, inappropriate, or simply demeaning. That is why to use racism in comedy to the extent that I’m proposing, a very strict demographic of comedian must be available to ensure successful delivery of concepts to the audience. 

On the opposing end of the spectrum, there are certainly comedians already out there that have transgressed divisions between themselves and their minority audiences because of ineffective use of racism in their comedy as they just aren’t the right comedians to use such material. Of course, there are a few household names that instantly come to mind when one thinks about rhetorical failures involving comedy but possibly the most prevalent one would be: Bill Maher. In February of 2017, talk-show host Bill Maher was criticized for using the term “house nigger” (Maher) nonchalantly while interviewing a United States senator. As Maher is a high-income, Caucasian male with little strenuous background, he is nearly the anti-Jobrani in rhetorical credibility when it comes to using such material. He is a genuine example of an inappropriate rhetor to carry out the task of enacting social reform through comedic racism. Even prior to this incident, Maher did not have the credibility to be a proper rhetor and that is something that would definitely be addressed thoroughly. 

Another recent example of an improper rhetor would be Louis C.K. To be honest, I had significant evidence of the acceptable, efficient use of racism in comedy by example of the famed comedian Louis. The evidence I had accumulated was sympathetic: “white people problems- moving mom into the cellar; oh shit, their cutting off our heads today [in another country with an Arabic accent]” (C.K.), informative: “call Debbie to a white person, ‘well I haven’t had a clean glass of water in two years you fat shit,” and self-reflective: “only people near my fat, white body should have jobs… and not those Pakistani call service assholes.” Those few jokes taken from several Louis C.K. skits were all, in context, very successful at generating a communal approval from the audience who noticeable identified the irony in Louis’ work while enjoying it; which is much like the platform I intend to support for comedic racism. Despite his comedic abilities, Louis’ recent sexual harassment scandals have led to the immediate demise of his credibility as an entertainer. Thus, he is no longer a viable candidate to use comedic racism as his attempts would be muddled by the audience’s knowledge of his past transgressions regardless of their nature. 

Furthermore, it’s unrealistic for American activists to alienate the issue of racism in America instead of addressing it head on as the use of racism in comedy would essentially do. Much of the work of contemporary social movements have done their best to enact social reform, and not social change. Reform dictates that something is inherently changed at legal level, but change reflects genuine effects on others’ opinions of an issue. One cannot simply reform legal codes to make it illegal to be a racist or make it illegal to discriminate, but one should strive to change the emotional feelings of prejudice one has on another. To alienate those who oppose one’s own opinions is like putting a bandage on a wound that begs for stitches. The use of racism in comedy would take a more emotional approach than legal change. Through the unifying of audiences by the use of comedy, comedic racism could affect individuals on the scale of one’s person and not their demographics or political affiliation. Comedy has the power to transcend political barriers and reach one on a spiritual level where humans are most impressionable. Shiralee Hood once stated, “if you make someone laugh, you’ve won the battle… building bridges by making the world laugh, making people understand” and that quote rings true today as we sit at a crossroads: to reform society through the illegalization racism or to change society to make racism a thing of the past. I, and the methodology of using comedic racism, believe the latter is the best course of actions for America. 

It is also important to note that, while on the subject, it is morally wrong and systematically impossible to simply outcast certain groups in America from society because of their prejudices; but instead there is hope to enlighten them through comedic racism. During the Second World War, propaganda led the American people to hate Japanese-Americans and deemed them as spies, traitors, and militants. As the war raged on, many Americans became more and more aware of the relocation of Japanese-Americans to sites hundreds of miles from typical American infrastructure. While historians now reflect on the actions of the US government as being unconstitutional and racist, Americans at the time believed it to be in their best interests to exile the Japanese-Americans to these internment camps despite there being only eighty-eight documented cases of Japanese spies being in America between 1930 and 1940 (Yenne). Similarly, today, Americans cannot and should not react to racists by alienating them or exiling them from society. Instead, new age activists should look to comedic racism as a tool to change the minds of racists alive today in the United States. While it would be ignorant to conclude that comedic racism could really change all their minds, an inkling of doubt in the mind of Georgian grandfather or a minute taste of progressive views within a Kentucky boy could spell the beginning of the spread of socially just concepts to those areas. If once can expose these groups to something as related, unifying, and genuine as racism in a comedic sense, then there is hope that these groups can be assimilated into a more acceptable American society instead of being outcasts for life. It is important to note as well that, alike children on a playground, to leave one demographic out of a game is to nurture indifference and even hatred within them as they aren’t even given opportunities to develop in an inclusive society. That is why I contend that comedic racism may be the olive branch to prejudice Americans that will one day resolve the issue of racism in America from its core. 

The use of racism in comedy isn’t necessarily to end a stigma on racism, but instead the main purpose is to reveal common flaws between cultures in hopes that an audience can identify, internalize, and discover how ridiculous the nature of racism is to help end the individual’s own prejudices. If one takes the time to reflect on themselves, they will quickly realize that it’s exceptionally easy to criticize another culture without first recognizing the flaws of one’s own culture. Christians teach their children to believe a bearded man can fit down a chimney to deliver presents because it’s Christ’s birthday and why not. The majority of American-Jews attend synagogue and pray in a language completely beyond their comprehension. Muslims pray towards the direction of a holy city they’ve only seen on Google Images. White Americans can underachieve their way through any college in the country. Every culture or race or religion has their own attributes that, from a third-party perspective, can be deemed as comical. The major point to make is that comedy has the power to reveal common flaws in different cultures that may not be recognizable to someone in that culture. The difficult part is that to reveal those flaws often takes the use of stereotypes, stigmas, or other comedic strategies that are considered racist in nature. Regardless, “you can still do [ethnic and racial comedy] if you tell the truth. If you do it out of meanness, it’s no fun” (Lopez) which is valid in practice as proven by Jobrani, Lopez, and C.K. who continuously used racism in their comedy for comedic effect and not simply to be racist. If similar rhetors are able to have the same effect while also doing so for a political purpose, there is hope that comedic racism could be successful.  

The final argument in favor of using comedic racism to provoke social change in America is that its use focuses itself on: unifying audiences, forming bonds between strangers, and utilizing laughter from self-reflection all as means to stimulate the individuals desire to end racism. There will be no great resurgence to end racism through comedic racism if its delivery in unsuccessful. Though if an appropriate rhetor does properly integrate racism into his comedy, it’s likely that the atmosphere would facilitate the development of friendships. The theory is summed up by the words of Jobrani: “racism has always existed, and a big part of it is people just not knowing others. I think humans change other human's minds, and it's hard for someone in the middle of America to hate Syrian refugees if they've been able to befriend them.” Friendship often revolves around a mutual bond of sympathy, enjoyment, and common interests. If comedic racism can utilize that basic aspect of human society, the communal dismay towards racism could spread exponentially. Psychologists Today published an article claiming that, “good humor can, in fact, create and cement friendships” (Levine) which is a foundational belief that aids in the claim that using racism in comedy to provoke social change would work. By uniting a crowd in friendship, developing ideas surrounding the ridiculous nature of racism should then have an environment consisting of like-minded people. The hope is that the exposure to a sarcastic use of racism in comedy should allow them to make connections together that leads to, while maybe not a physical fight against racism (though that would be beneficial as well), but still an ideological battle to end prejudice. 

Despite decades of dedication to the decimation of racism from American society, the epidemic that is racism still calls for the use of comedic racism to unite the American populace through communal dismay for the surviving elements of prejudice. One can even think of today’s more traditional methods of enacting social reform (sit-ins, boycotts, marches, social media, the news, etc.) as comparable to the, unfortunately slow, methods used by the American Woman Suffrage Association (AWSA) in the twentieth century. While nonetheless progressive, both modes of protest came, and have come, to the point that they were, and maybe are, perceived as unbearably slow in their efforts to reform American culture. I believe that at this point in American history there is a dire need to enact change to our crippled American society by altering the game altogether. In the Spring of 1869, the National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA) split from the American Woman Suffrage Movement to chase what they believed to be a bolder, more efficient, and more inspiring methodology to grant women the same rights as men. Intensely ridiculed by their pier women’s activist groups, their idea was simply put: to enact change through federal reform over state-by-state reformation. Today, I argue that a movement by American rhetors to use racism in comedy as a tool for social change, instead of a medium for hatred, would be similar in effect to the drastic change spearheaded by the NWSA in 1869. Though the concept of purposefully using racism in comedy is undoubtedly controversial at first glance, I contend that such a dramatic shift in America’s current battle against racism could lead to countless decisive victories as many activists, including I, rage the battle onward against tyranny, bigotry, and oppression. I challenge the reader to be open-minded, and consider the same for oneself. 