Tea & Satire

Tea Party Express at the Minnesota capitol

Folks outside of the States are probably wondering, as usual, what the hell we Americans are up to with our Tea Parties and whatnot. The Brits will be glad to know that we are not messing with their tea this time around. Instead, we are busy spilling our own tea.

While our latest Tea Party is about politics, I won’t be focusing on that aspect in this post. Rather, I’ll use a recent incident as a concrete foundation for a brief discussion of satire.

Satire can be a rather sharp sword and can easily cut the hand that forged it. Mark Williams has been wounded by his own satirical blade: he  decided to leave the Tea Party Express due to the fallout generated by his blog.

Satire, being a form of comedy, falls within the realm of the ugly. As Aristotle argued, it involves presenting “some defect or ugliness which is not painful or destructive.” That, then, is the challenge of satire-being ugly, but not crossing into the realm of pain and destruction.  Crossing that line transforms the satire into the merely mean. As one might expect, discerning where the line lies does involve considering the purpose of the satire being examined.

I will, of course, admit the obvious: the line between the satirical and the merely mean is not an exact one. However, when someone crosses deep into the realm of the merely mean, that can often be readily seen.

Williams, I think, crossed that line.

Perhaps his failure at satire was due merely to a lack of skill rather than, as some have argued, racism. I will not render a judgment on this, but will merely consider the content of his post.

His post was supposed to be a fictional letter to Lincoln from the “Coloreds” and it begins as follows:

“Dear Mr. Lincoln, we Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don’t cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!”

While it is tempting to claim that any use of “Coloreds” must be racism, that would be an error.  While it is a rather sharp term, satire deals in sharp terms and hence almost no term can be excluded as unfit for use. However, the sharper the term being employed, he more deftly the satirist must handle his tools lest he be cut to the bone.

Williams does not seem to have handled the term particularly well, at least in terms of his avowed purpose of lampooning those who had raised concerns about racism and the tea party. After all, trying to satirize charges of racism by merely presenting racial stereotypes is hardly a demonstration of skilled handling. Using the term “cotton” is also rather questionable. After all, in the United States linking “coloreds” and “cotton” is a stock tool of racism.

As another example, consider the following:

“Bailouts are just big money welfare and isn’t that what we want all Coloreds to strive for? What kind of racist would want to end big money welfare? What they need to do is start handing the bailouts directly to us coloreds!”

I can see, somewhat, what Williams might have been attempting here. Perhaps he was trying to make the point that to see the Tea Party’s opposition to bailout’s as racism would itself be racist, presumably because it would be based on racist stereotypes about “Coloreds.” However, it seems to come across in a different way, namely that it asserts that “Coloreds” love welfare and hence oppose the Tea Party’s opposition to bailouts (which are seen as welfare). Thus, far from refuting the charge of racism via a clever satire, it rather seems to provide evidence for said racism.

Enhanced by Zemanta
  1. It’s not the the good name of the coloureds that have been blacked. There’s a hidden American agenda here that’s bigger than the blacks, sorry, coloureds.

    The letter to Lincoln suggested, despite its satire, that every reasonable person sees life as a welfare/free enterprise choice.

    Free enterprise, of course, is a form of gambling that leaves its losers on welfare or dead. As such, it is parasitic. But most people, coloureds included, want to get on with their lives, communally.

    They do not want to gamble their day to day security on the chance of a quick buck.

    So the coloureds in that satire, were, in fact, morally correct to some degree. They didn’t want to gamble using the cards of free enterprise. They were right.

  2. I support much of the tea party thinking.
    However, I am disgusted with this particular line of thought. The “satire” didn’t work for me

  3. John Jones,

    In the States, it is common to try to present the choice between welfare and free enterprise as a black or white sort of choice. On this extreme view, anything less than a free market is socialism (or at least a fellow traveler).

    This view does seem to embrace a false dilemma, though. After all, the norm in the West is a blend of free market and welfare (and, of course, wealthfare). As supporters of each point out, they both have their good and bad aspects. For example, allowing people the freedom to compete can lead to better goods & services. As another example, providing support for people who are in need shows compassion and also helps maintain social stability (to a degree).

  4. Typical “strawmen” arguments. Its self-evident none of the writers has experience in regulating free enterprise or implementing legislation in an executive context.

  5. Problem is once a thug always one-period.

Leave a Comment


NOTE - You can use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>