i think i have a thesis

The Boondocks mocks Nelson’s time periods by sarcastically exaggerating their presence within the show, attempting to combat the typical ways that blacks have been represented on television and catalyzing a new category of black representation which I will name Faux Assimilated Hybrid Minstrelsy. The Boondocks, which exemplifies this category, uses visual and linguistic patterns to display three distinct character types to portray African Americans: 1) Well Rounded black characters, 2) hyper-stereotypical black characters, and 3) white characters with stereotypically black traits. By juxtaposing well-rounded black characters––which were not seen in American media until Nelson’s fourth period (1944)––with stereotypical black characters and stereotypically black white characters, The Boondocks portrays a diverse representation of African Americans and in doing so, demonstrates the falsity of earlier representations of African Americans and suggests that the association of stereotypically black traits with black people is actually a fallacy.

Not an Outline

Argument:

In Aaron McGruder’s The Boondocks, African Americans are portrayed as both unique and rounded characters and as stereotypical caricatures. The viewer can often distinguish between a character’s unique portrayal and a character’s stereotypical portrayal by the character’s eyes, facial expressions, clothing, and speech. The characters within the boondocks mockingly fit into the traditional time period associated black caricatures but their intentional mockery adds a layer of social criticism to the portrayal of African Americans. Some critics think that The Boondocks not a positive force in African American representation. However, because The Boondocks mocks old character norms, and challenges frameworks of black representation, even though black people aren’t always portrayed in the best light, the diversity and uniqueness of their portrayal is a positive message to America that black people do not fit packaged nicely into caricatured roles.

Topic 1: The viewer can often distinguish between a character’s unique portrayal and a character’s stereotypical portrayal by the character’s eyes, facial expressions, clothing, and speech.

Key evidence 1: Eyes from Rhetorical Analysis II

Key evidence 2: Riley’s clothes vs. Dubois’s clothes

Key evidence 3: Speech patterns of the two white “ignorant niggas” (from Synthesis)

Topic 2: The characters within the boondocks mockingly fit into the traditional time period associated black caricatures

Key evidence 1: Angela Nelson’s Time periods (from Synthesis)

Key evidence 2: example time period characters from Nelson

Key evidence 3: Example boondocks characters

Key evidence 4: Characters that don’t fit the mold from The Boondocks

Topic 3: Some critics think that The Boondocks not a positive force in African American representation. They’re wrong. I think it is.

Key evidence 1: DeWayne Wickham’s article about the N word

Key evidence 2: Nancy C. Cornwell’s essay about Boondocks responses

Key evidence 3: Robert M. Entman’s essay about the effect on white viewers

Key evidence 4: Robert Ferguson’s essay showing how The Boondocks is misinterpreted as racist

Key evidence 5: Naomi Rockler’s and Roland Kelts’s international perspective

Dinner Party

I couldn't figure out how to upload my dinner party here so I just loaded it to telesis. Ms. Bates Please take a look at it if you get a chance. It's in the RAE folder called "Dinner Party."

Annotation of Nelson

Angela M.S. Nelson. “Black Situation Comedies and the Politics of Television Art.” Cultural Diversity and The U.S. Media. State University of New York Press, Albany, 1998. 79-87

Nelson argues that because American television programming is and always has been a result of contemporary American politics, the portrayal of African Americans on television is/has been a reflection of these racist politics and views. One of her claims is that “Blacks have appeared in the situation comedy [or sitcom] genre more than in any other television formula” (79). Therefore, she provides a timeline of Black sitcoms as examples of different ways Blacks have been portrayed. According to Nelson, the only reason that Black sitcoms are “Black” is because they have black performers even though the sitcoms do not necessarily “exhibit and African American worldview or a Black philosophy” (80). As evidence, Nelson describes the four time periods that scholar have developed to roughly describe black portrayal in television. Throughout the first three time periods, black portrayal was often a reflection of racist norms or expectations of white television executives and only in the last period did African Americans actually begin to play “rounder and fuller portrayals of Blacks” (85).

This article is useful to me because it clearly defines and categorizes the time periods of black television and the types of television and comedy. With these definitions and sub-categories, Nelson provides me with the jargon to make my claim about my primary source as well as a temporal framework with which to place it. Nelson’s primary argument is valid and sound because it is a sub argument of the more general argument that television is a reflection of current affairs and politics. Therefore to dispute Nelson’s argument, one would have to dispute that America’s current political environment effects television programming. Nelson’s more specific argument that black portray on television has been racist and indicative of a subservient black class is valid because again, to dispute this one would have to dispute the fact that blacks were societally discriminated against. With this as a historical given, Nelson’s article simply gives a technical breakdown and cited examples of otherwise obvious claims.

· Quotation: …“However, more often than not, the cultural contexts of Black Americans are not explicitly evident in Black sitcoms, except when there is an emphasis on Black music, art, and literature as references and the use of Black language and Black verbal art forms.” (80).

This passage illustrates how the common definition of black sitcoms is not actually reflective of “blackness” but rather a pseudo definition that relates more to the races of the actors than to the implications and portrayals within the actual show.

· Paraphrase: Most black sitcoms during the third period were merely a fusion of the hybrid minstrelsy–– portraying blacks as subservient to whites––of the first period and the forced” black power rhetoric” packaged into cultural assimilation that was reflective of the second period. [Original: “The majority of Black sitcoms during this period presented an assimilated hybrid minstrel style by carrying over some of the same aural and visual qualities of hybrid minstrelsy while at the same time appropriating Black power rhetoric (Reid, 1993.” (85)]

This supports the claim I will be making that throughout most of television history, portrayals of African Americans has been racist and indicative of a subservient expectation of black in acting roles. This quote demonstrated how the third period of black television was not a positive development but rather just a combination of the flaws of the first period with the overcompensation of the second period.

Annotation of Nelson

Angela M.S. Nelson. “Black Situation Comedies and the Politics of Television Art.” Cultural Diversity and The U.S. Media. State University of New York Press, Albany, 1998. 79-87

Nelson argues that because American television programming is and always has been a result of contemporary American politics, the portrayal of African Americans on television is/has been a reflection of these racist politics and views.  One of her claims is that “Blacks have appeared in the situation comedy [or sitcom] genre more than in any other television formula” (79).  Therefore, she provides a timeline of Black sitcoms as examples of different ways Blacks have been portrayed.  According to Nelson, the only reason that Black sitcoms are “Black” is because they have black performers even though the sitcoms do not necessarily “exhibit and African American worldview or a Black philosophy” (80).  As evidence, Nelson describes the four time periods that scholar have developed to roughly describe black portrayal in television.  Throughout the first three time periods, black portrayal was often a reflection of racist norms or expectations of white television executives and only in the last period did African Americans actually begin to play “rounder and fuller portrayals of Blacks” (85).  

This article is useful to me because it clearly defines and categorizes the time periods of black television and the types of television and comedy.  With these definitions and sub-categories, Nelson provides me with the jargon to make my claim about my primary source as well as a temporal framework with which to place it.  Nelson’s primary argument is valid and sound because it is a sub argument of the more general argument that television is a reflection of current affairs and politics.  Therefore to dispute Nelson’s argument, one would have to dispute that America’s current political environment effects television programming.  Nelson’s more specific argument that black portray on television has been racist and indicative of a subservient black class is valid because again, to dispute this one would have to dispute the fact that blacks were societally discriminated against.  With this as a historical given, Nelson’s article simply gives a technical breakdown and cited examples of otherwise obvious claims. 

·    Quotation: …“However, more often than not, the cultural contexts of Black Americans are not explicitly evident in Black sitcoms, except when there is an emphasis on Black music, art, and literature as references and the use of Black language and Black verbal art forms.” (80).  

This passage illustrates how the common definition of black sitcoms is not actually reflective of “blackness” but rather a pseudo definition that relates more to the races of the actors than to the implications and portrayals within the actual show.

·         Paraphrase: Most black sitcoms during the third period were merely a fusion of the hybrid minstrelsy–– portraying blacks as subservient to whites––of the first period and the forced” black power rhetoric” packaged into cultural assimilation that was reflective of the second period.  [Original: “The majority of Black sitcoms during this period presented an assimilated hybrid minstrel style by carrying over some of the same aural and visual qualities of hybrid minstrelsy while at the same time appropriating Black power rhetoric (Reid, 1993.” (85)]  

This supports the claim I will be making that throughout most of television history, portrayals of African Americans has been racist and indicative of a subservient expectation of black in acting roles.  This quote demonstrated how the third period of black television was not a positive development but rather just a combination of the flaws of the first period with the overcompensation of the second period. 

Extra Credit: The Writing Center

On Wednesday I attended the Writing Center Workshop on Critical Analysis of a Secondary Source. The workshop began with a breakdown of things to pay attention to regarding a source. This reminded me of the lay of the land worksheet that Ms. Bates Gave us in class except it was much more detailed and grouped the questions into categories. The workshop leader gave us a handout with this information but the main points were to know information about the author and the intended audience, know the rhetorical situation that the source is discussing, and know the claims and evidence in the source. The workshop leader said that it was very important for the reader of your paper to be able to clearly tell the difference between your voice and the voice of your source. Therefore you have to know the aforementioned information in order to properly judge the source and dominate its argument within your paper.

One of the best ways to judge a source is by pinpointing its unstated assumptions. We went through an example of a newspaper article by David Bonetti in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch discussing Washington University architecture. This was helpful because it gave us a real situation where we could judge an article based on its assumptions. The most important thing we learned was how to respond to a source once we had judged it. As Lauren said in her blog, There are three basic ways to respond to sources: Disagree and explain why, Agree but with a difference, and to agree and disagree simultaneously.

This workshop will help me with my Synthesis essay and RAE because I now have practice close reading a secondary source and looking for ways to judge it. I am going to reread my source using the method in the workshop and now I have a template to respond to it. When I annotate my source this weekend, I will use the Workshop handout to respond to it and then base my argument upon that.

Lay of the Land Comment

I found that last assignment to be cumbersome and tedious. While I do think it is important to be aware of all of that information in order to analyze our secondary source, I think that I spent most of the assignment just copying over quotes and information about the author's credentials. I felt like more time was spend actually "doing" the assignment than was spent analyzing and learning the importance of the information. Since the goal of the assignment was to give us a better grasp of our secondary source, I believe that the assignment was a success. However, was there another means to that end? When the majority of time is spent on busy work, it makes the actual analysis feel almost arbitrary. This is not the message that an assignment designed to help should send you.

Lay of the Land: Cultural Diversity and the U.S. Media

Angela M.S. Nelson. “Black Situation Comedies and the Politics of Television Art.” Cultural Diversity and The U.S. Media. State University of New York Press, Albany, 1998

1) Is this a direct conversation or application source? (If you are unclear about the difference between the two, review the “Types of Sources” handout in the Student Handbook.)

This is an application source. The Boondocks Television show didn’t air until 2006 and the comic strip it was based on wasn’t published until 1999. This source was published in 1998, and therefore does not directly discuss either the Boondocks show or comic strip. This source is application source because it chronicles the development of black portrayal in media especially television comedy.

2) What are the author’s credentials in his or her field? (If you are unable to answer this question now with the book in hand, research the author after class—find their profile on a university’s faculty page, search for a self-authored website or a recently published interview, for example).

Editors:

“Yahya R. Kamalipour (Ph.D., University of Missouri-Columbia) is Professor of Mass Communications and director of graduate studies at the Department of Communication and Creative Arts, Purdue University Calumet, Hammond, IN. He has taught university courses at Oxford, England, and Tehran, Iran…board member of the Cultural Environment Movement,” (295)

“Theresa Carilli (PhD., Southern Illinois University) is an associate professor of Communication and Creative Arts at Purdue University Calumet…She has published a book of plas, Women as Lovers: Two Plays (Guernica Editions, 1996). Her work appears in [many famous publications],” (295)

Author:

“Angela M.S. Nelson is an assistant professor in the Department of Popular Culture at Bowling Green State University (Ohio) where she teaches courses on Black popular culture, popular music, television studies, and television situation comedy.” (299)

3) Does date of production affect its relevance to your primary source? If so, how?

As said in question one, the Boondocks Television show didn’t air until 2006 and the comic strip it was based on wasn’t published until 1999. This source was published in 1998, and therefore does not directly discuss either the Boondocks show or comic strip. However the fact that it is published in 1998 is relevant because it is still recent enough to have a historical perspective on the development of Black Situation comedies while still giving a contemporary perspective.

4) Who is the author’s audience? Don’t go for the bland “general” or “academic.” The audience for most scholarly sources is academic, just as the audience for non-scholarly sources is often general. Instead, search the introduction and/or first chapter for clues about the intended audience.

The intended audience of this book is the media and/or those affected by the media. “The papers in this book point to the responsibility the mass media have to facilitate cultural awareness and understanding.” This book categorizes the cultural problems of the media and attempts to offer solutions to these various problems. This books goal is to be a “wake-up call to the American mass media to reevaluate their social responsibilities, to realize their crucial role in American society, and to balance their portrayals of cultural groups.” (xxi)

5) If it is a direct secondary source, does the source extensively or marginally cover your cultural object? If it is a applied secondary source, how will you relate it to your cultural object?

As said in question 1, this source is application source because it chronicles the development of black portrayal in media especially television comedy. This article will primarily help me because it categorizes and explains black comedies into three sub-genres: “domcoms (domestic comedies), actcoms (action comedies), and dramedies (dramatic comedies).” This is helpful because The Boondocks falls into all three of these categories at different points. In addition, the article offers a temporal framework to analyze black comedies. Since my primary source came into existence after the time periods described, I can use this secondary source to compare and contract my new-age source to the older black sitcoms.

6) What discipline (ie. psychology, media studies, women’s studies) is the secondary source part of and how does this inform the kinds of analysis/questions it asks of its primary source?

This is a cross-disciplinary source including media studies focusing on comedy, cultural studies, African American studies, and ethnic minority studies. Since it is cross disciplinary in nature, it may not be as in depth with some concepts but the source is useful because it looks at the nature of black comedies from a multidimensional perspective which is what I will need to do to thoroughly analyze my primary source.

7) Which claims do you find most/least persuasive and why?

One of the most persuasive claims is that Black sitcoms often were not actually “Black” because they did not exhibit any actual Black opinions or philosophy. Rather, they were just considered black comedies because the actors were black and used black vernacular which was supposed to imply a black perspective on situations. However, in actuality, there was no cultural context evident in many of these sitcoms and therefore they should not actually be considered “black comedies.” (80) This claim is very persuasive

Early On: Locating Secondary Sources

Bring the most recently published book you’ve located on your secondary source to class with you. Try to find one that has been published in the last seven years.

Step I. Use the Library of Congress Subject Headings to locate more sources.

In Class: Look at the subject headings listed on the bibliographic information page. In the space below, write down the phrases seem most related to your RAE.

Afro-Americans in mass media

Mass media and race relations––United States

United Status––Race Relations

For Homework:

1. Pull up the book in the university catalog. Scroll down to the related subject headings and browse them. OR type in one of the subject headings that you listed above into a Subject Headings search.

2. On your REA Blog, provide the subject heading that lead you to locating a new book (s). Give the MLA citation information for the new book(s) you located.

Unfortunately, the library search is down so I am unable to search the catalog right now. I’ll search it tomorrow under the subject “African Americans in mass media” which is a derivation of one of my subjects from the library of congress.

Step II. Use the Legwork in the Introduction.

In Class: The introduction or first chapter of a book often reviews the previous scholarship done in the field. Scan these pages of your book and note the titles they give. You may also find this information in the foot- or endnotes for the chapter.

List quotations from the source that state what those sources mean and how they fit into the argument. Give page numbers.

New Source #1 located in context:

Howard Winant. Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1980s. New York, 1994.

“As demonstrated by studies that ask for rankings of ethnic groups, Blacks are generally the most vulnerable, though this varies somewhat by locale and circumstance. Moreover, as Winant³ points out, unlike Whites, African Americans have little control over society’s group identification of them; most are visibly marked as African Americans, and most Whites are hyperconscious of each individual’s racial membership.” (Entman, The Black Image in the White Mind pg. xiii)

New Source #2 located in context:

Donald Bogle. Toms, Coons, Mulattoes, Mammies & Bucks: An Interpretive History of Blacks in American Films. New York, 1989

“Growing beyond the myths of genetic racial hierarchy, the current culture rejects the most overt claims of Black inferiority––and this ironically cultivates White impatience and hostility. / The contrast becomes clear when we compare Hollywood’s submissive, jolly Black mammies and uncles of the 1930s or 1940s⁴ with the aggressive Black characters in such films of the 1990s as Independence Day or Jerry Maguire,” (Entman, The Black Image in the White Mind pg. 3)”

For Homework: Check out at least one book that you discovered in Step I or Step II. Write a brief summary 5-or-so sentence summary of the source. Next, describe how it will be useful for your project.

The Source I chose emerged from Step II and is a book by Donald Bogle that examines the stereotypical roles that black actors and actresses were pigeon-holed into as cinema developed. Bogle asserts that the roles black actors were stereotyped into generally fall into the categories of Toms, Coons, Mulattoes, Mammies, & Bucks. Furthermore, Bogle argues that not only were these the roles that black actors were traditionally stereotyped into but they continued to exist and in fact still exist as the general roles that black actors fill today. Although some black actors have been able to transcend these stereotypes within their role, many must still succumb to these stereotypes in order to get famous or gain employment. Bogle implies that America has not developed as much as it may seem because we are still locked into the stereotypes of the 1940s and 1950s.

Donald Bogle. Toms, Coons, Mulattoes, Mammies & Bucks: An Interpretive History of Blacks in American Films. New York, 1989