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.