Modified On May 16, 2007
She’s on the cover of the latest Maxim. At least we think she is. It’s impossible to tell from that rat’s nest of a website over at maxim.com– it’s designed for 15-year-olds and college students who have decided to take only four credits this semester. We’re linking to another blog, Daily Gut, that linked (somehow?!?) to the Maxim article. Go there to see a large shot of the cover (featuring Silverman only half-wearing a gorilla suit) and to read this quote:
Are you trying to offend as many people as possible on The Sarah Silverman Program?
“The misconception is that I’m making fun of people when it’s my character who’s clearly the ignoramus. You can call Archie Bunker racist, but you wouldn’t call All in the Family racist. Not that I’m comparing my show to All in the Family– my show is much better. Did you see the episode where I shit my pants? Very cerebral. My point is, if you don’t look at the show as a whole, you may get offended. But that’s true for everything. In so many ways– politically, socially– we sell ourselves short by not looking at the whole picture…”
Indeed we do.
Unfortunately, Sarah, there are a number of people out there who would not hesitate for a second to call All In The Family racist.
Do a search using “Archie Bunker” and “racist” and you’ll find no shortage of folks who brand the character and the show (and the producers and the TV execs and, ultimately, every single viewer who helped make it a success) as racist.
It’s “part of America’s twisted collective psyche,” and “Archie Bunker is guilty just as the masses of Germans who didn’t light the fires for ovens during the Jewish Holocaust are guilty,” says one particularly bilious reviewer.
“Blacks ought to recognize that when white America hears Archie Bunker, they instinctively harmonize, ‘Those Were the Days,'” says another.
From an analysis of “Til Death Do Us Part,” the British progenitor of the show:
There is little evidence to support the claim of programme producers and writers that mixing humour with bigotry will automatically underline the stupidity of the latter through the clever device of former. If bigots do not perceive such programmes as satire, and much of the research effort so far seems to indicate that a satirical reading is by no means universal, then they are unlikely to become less prejudiced as a result of watching these shows.
So, there you have it. There must be “evidence” that supports the “claim” of the producers and writers of the show. Otherwise, we can be confident that they were merely intent on spreading hatred and bigotry, rather than combatting it. And, if we aren’t 100 per cent sure that the viewers are taking the joke in the way in which it is intended, the show is clearly dangerous. We mustn’t make jokes that might be taken the wrong way, you know– they might be watching! (“They,” in this case, being stupid people. The exact same argument is used by folks on the other side to sanitize popular entertainment from any references or material that might corrupt “the children.”)
Is anyone else disturbed by this kind of language?
Let’s hope that Sarah Silverman has “evidence” to back her “claim.” Her trial date hasn’t been set, but we believe it’s coming up soon.