l never hurt me...
themselves by disparaging members of their
own group, or even their own family.’ Whilst
such material is generally popular within minority groups, this does not mean that minorities
never wince or feel insulted when their group is
singled out for ridicule.
Christie Davies consistently argues that those
who view ethnic humour as contributing to
prejudice are missing the point. They are misled
by the presence of disparaging stereotypes.
Such humour does, of course, largely hold up
identifiable groups to ridicule. But if people were
primarily concerned with expressing hostility,
there are plenty of ways to do this without going
to the trouble of inventing jokes. ‘It plays with
stereotypes and exploits them, but it does not
create them.’ Writers are not guilty of inventing
stereotypes or the slurs and obscenities that
often accompany them. Instead, they only force
us to confront these elements..
Words are just words
More over it is comedians who pave the way for
us to dip into this domain of negative emotions
and anxieties. They take it upon themselves
to bring up sexual, racial, and other forbidden
topics, and by situating them in the context of
humour, the tensions that are aroused can be
released as laughter. If you don’t have a clever punchline to convert the tension you are in
trouble.
Carlin’s arguments boil down to the claim that
words, are essentially harmless, They only have
meaning insofar as we choose or have been
conditioned to endow them with meaning.
Converted slurs into positive statements.
However Considerable social research done
in the 1930’s, 1940’s and 1950’s demonstrates
that painful reactions were common in the past,
when prejudice and discrimination against minorities were widely accepted.
“It’s only a joke” or “That’s not PC”
Issues of language semantics & censorship
Jane Littlewood and James Pickering in their
writing within ‘I Tell a Joke or Two; Comedy politics and Social Difference’ outline the assertion
that “Any attempt to question the moral proprieties of comedy is doomed to failure for the
simple reason that it mistakes the very ‘Nature
of the comic impulse’. ‘It fails to appreciate what
is essential to the comic element in cultural
performance and interaction and that the very
justification or reason for its existence is about
‘Subverting moral proprieties, by challenging us
to laugh at the seriousness with which we take
our own codes, precepts, values and beliefs.’
‘Over simple and partial’ Humour is a multiform
and dynamic human phenomenon, and has no
universally essential feature.’ Likewise Simon
Weaver, author of ‘The Rhetoric of Racist Humour’, bases his entire publication and analysis
around the serious complexities of comedy.
It is not uncommon to make assessments of
comedy by labelling it as not being politically
correct or defending humour once again as
being allowed to be “PC.” According to Simon
Weaver, “Political correctness cannot explain
the serious meanings in racist jokes”. “I argue
that to take an overly politically correct line
with race joking often ignores the complexity of
meanings or issues that are being articulated.”