Why Can’t Black People Sing About Chicken?

Some of you may be familiar with a recent controversy concerning R&B singer Mary J. Blige.  She filmed a Burger King commercial wherein she sang about fried chicken wrapped in a tortilla.   She faced a lot of criticism from blacks who decried her for her jingle concerning breaded poultry.  The commercial was called racist and she was even mocked in a hilarious spoof of her performance.

This got me to thinking—what is wrong with what Blige did?  I feel pretty comfortable in saying that fried chicken is a part of black American cuisine.  And I would concede that fried chicken is often used to mock black folks.  I recall golfer Fuzzy Zoeller’s comment about Tiger Woods. 

But who the hell cares?

I have a theory as to why some blacks decried the commercial.  It relates to a post I wrote a couple of weeks ago concerning blacks in the North before the Civil War.  In that post I noted that northern black newspapermen tried to push their brethren to behave in a manner that whites would approve of so that they would be given full citizenship. I think this mindset among blacks—to constantly monitor their behavior to inoculate themselves from whites’ possible disapproval—still continues to this day.  I have had countless conversations where an intelligent black person will disclose to me that they will modify their behavior, or hope that other blacks will modify their behavior, so as to minimize whites’ disapproval.  And in the back of my mind I always have the same thought: “How sad.”

Most people believe that racism’s biggest effect is that is takes away opportunities from blacks on the basis of their skin color.  I’ve always disagreed with this.  I think the biggest effect is that it renders many blacks incapable of being comfortable in their own skin.  There’s always a need to apologize for something.  Or defend something.  It’s exhausting.  Well, I imagine it is.  I’ve rejected this sort of thinking.  I wish others would too.  

 

Comments

[AGR]

Yes. We have a right to chicken done right! I suppose the problem is that far too often when blacks make it into the media, we are allowed to be "comfortable in [our] own skin" only to extent that the activity conforms to an entirely predictable set of behaviors.

I think there is more wrong with racism than that it makes us uncomfortable in our own skin.

[Patrick S. O'Donnell]

Re: I think this mindset among blacks—to constantly monitor their behavior to inoculate themselves from whites’ possible disapproval—still continues to this day. I have had countless conversations where an intelligent black person will disclose to me that they will modify their behavior, or hope that other blacks will modify their behavior, so as to minimize whites’ disapproval. And in the back of my mind I always have the same thought: “How sad.”

It may be sad, but if such behavior makes it easier to get a raise or job promotion, or facilitate entry into othewise closed social circles of one type or another, one can certainly understand why folks resort to it. In some respects it's not unlike the different ways some of us behave in public and private fora, more closely monitoring (i.e., being more self-conscious of) our behavior in the former than the latter settings, for any number of reasons, not all of them (let's say) virtuous (e.g., I'm very status and class conscious, and not comfortable in social events or settings dominated by folks of the upper crust, trying not to display my ignorance of 'proper' etiquette and upper class mannerisms or affectations). Of course racism (and perhaps not just racism) is the different variable here, and this is what makes it not just sad, but disturbing.

[Jeffrey Harrison]

What great comments! I'd just like to add that fried chicken to me is just a southern dish. More seriously, I think what you say applies doubly to law school hiring. It appears to me that predominately white faculties want to hire African Americans who act and have the same tastes they do. And, as Patrick suggests, the matter of tailoring your behavior to "fit" with the upper crust is a big problem for those from anything but the upper classes. I recall my first teaching job when, after a year of two of not wearing the right suits (I thought the more high fashion the better)one of the elites took me to Brook Brothers to get the "right" clothes. The affectations are even harder to deal with.

[Brando Simeo Starkey]

Thank you for the wonderful replies.

[AGR]

We should not think that black people who care about how they present themselves are just interested in impressing white people. That's not even close to the reason. For many of us, it's about the proper signaling to other young blacks and respect for the struggles of our parents, grandparents and ancestors. This is far more complicated than has been laid out.

[Jeffrey Harrison]

AGR: Could you elaborate? Are you saying that the way to signal is to act white?

[AGR]

Acting like an intelligent, dignified person is not acting white.

[AGR]

It's acting like an intelligent, dignified person.

[Patrick S. O'Donnell]

If one is intelligent and dignified, there is no need for acting.

[Jeffrey Harrison]

I guess the issue is who gets to decide what is intelligent and dignified and whether one has to mask his or her tastes to conform to the model. Does it mean giving up one's culture and individuality which I thing Brando may be suggesting is a danger of racism. I honestly do not know how one balances the two.

Here is an example. A candidate shows up for an interview. She is wearing gobs of jewelry because she likes it and the people around her like it. She also has crooked teeth, acne scars, and has dyed her hair red. Throw in some bright lipstick. Also significantly ovrweight. You can make her black or white. She is, however, extremely smart. I can guarantee she gets no call back because people are uncomfortable with her tastes and appearance. Is she giving the wrong signal, disrespecting her ancestors. And to be viewed an unintelligent and undignified?

[Kendall Isaac]

I watched the commercial and did not see it as racism. Stupid? Yes. Racist? No. I have also had the experience of walking into a banquet with a group of blacks (oops I mean African Americans) and overhearing a waiter tell his colleague they had better fry up some more chicken. An ignorant comment? Yes. Something to be concerned about? Not really.

The truth of the matter is that people need to be aware of their behavior, diction, appearance etc. as it opens them up to stereotyping more than racism. I have counseled blacks with dreadlocks for instance to be 'aware' that the choice in hair style may impact the ability to land certain jobs. One person responded to me that maybe he would not want to work for a place that pre-judged him on the basis of his hair. An astute observation and opinion, as long as he is willing to accept the consequences of it.

This is the society we live in, and like it or not we will have to choose to fit in or stand out, and live with our choice and stop complaining about the path we chose. Skin color may make you noticeable, but other qualities and characteristics can make you equally acceptable in 'almost' any social circle.

Ok, time to get off my soapbox and back to my plate of juicy delicious chicken!

[AGR]

"Acting" was not meant to be synonymous with "pretending"--which it is not always, of course.

Well, what is "one's culture and individuality" in a society that has been under the influence of white supremacy for centuries? I don't understand what the example about the candidate for the interview is supposed to convey. If she could be white or black, why does this speak to the situation of black Americans who have had a unique history in this country?

[Jeffrey Harrison]

I think what I was trying to say is that terms like dignified and intelligent are subjective and reflect current norms, fashion, and preferences. These norms are largely defined by the while privileged class who, ironically, in law teaching, define themselves a liberal. Thus a wonderfully intelligent black person who does not adopt the affectations, dress, preferences and speech of the controlling class will not be viewed as intelligent and dignified. There same for the over adorned white man or woman. My proof -- look around at the minorities who make it into law teaching.

[AGR]

Well, yes, what is considered dignified and intelligent behavior is a matter of time and place. I'm not quite sure how this got transformed into a discussion about law teachers, but I know many minority law professors (the term "many" has to be taken in context) and they present very different personalities and styles. They are all, however, what I would call dignified and intelligent. What other kind of minority law professor would you want to have in the academy?

[Jeffrey Harrison]

I don't think I am communicating the danger of using words like intelligent and dignified. They, like the terms collegiality and civility, are often employed to cover actual motivations and to suppress substantive as opposed to facial diversity. Anyway, thanks for the chat.

[AGR]

Oh, I understand exactly what you are saying. I just don't agree with your analysis,which elides the fact that blacks are in a unique situation in America. In your example above, you said the person could be black or white. Any hypo where that could be true does not get at the heart of the issue under discussion.

Anyway, I do agree with you about the dangers of certain words. It is pretty clear, however, that any concept or idea can be misused. But the dangers do not empty any of the words you mentioned-- intelligent, dignified, collegiality and civility-- of their meaning or render them without value. I value all of them. Yup, nice chat.

[Jeffrey Harrison]

One more comment since I see we are actually talking about the same thing. And this is strictly casual empiricism. No question the experience for blacks is different and not by a small margin but I think, and have had a number of minority teachers agree with me when I say this as part of a talk, that the impact of class is ignored. When I look around at black law professors they disproportionately seem to have parents who are middle class or higher and have college degrees. They (the professors I mean) also have elite degrees, and many of the trappings of the elites. They, shall we say, are groomed to fit in. In effect, they have the institutional authority whites like to see. Too many times I have sat in on interviews with minority candidates who maybe have crooked teeth, maybe were a little overweight or used a slang term. The interviewers are uncomfortable although there is no indication that person is any less intelligent or dignified. Indeed, the negatives are all facial and I do not mean only color. When I have talked about this there is typically tension in the room between those minorities with the proper breeding and those who are more like the person I described. I guess I am not really saying something new except it surprises me that there is not greater class consiousness within the black community. And, the reason may go all the way back to the orginal post about chicken. Or perhaps it reflects political conservatism on issues of wealth distribution. I think the premise of Kendall's comment is roughly consistent with mine. I read him to be saying, the deck is stacked but, if you want to play, suck it up."

[anon]

AGR says "When blacks make it into the media, we are allowed to be "comfortable in [our] own skin" only to extent that the activity conforms to an entirely predictable set of behaviors. "
Allowed by whom, AGR? "White people" ... "Jews" ...?
What will all the "white people" governing the media come up with next? According to AGR, “they” will "allow" only a depiction of "black" people who are acting according to a “predictable set of behaviors” to which all successful "black" persons in the public eye in this country must conform. Brando seems to suggest there is pressure in the “black community” to please “white people” …
I am confused.
Do racist "white people" tolerate –and richly reward — the glorification in the popular media of a hip hop sub-culture that glorifies drugs, violence, disrespect for women, bling and materiality over all other concerns? A culture that is led and represented almost exclusively by “black people” (apologies, Vanilla Ice)? I seem to recall being told (in a condescending manner, as I am “white”) about how this sub-culture actually grew out of the authentic “black” experience in the ghetto. Are these depictions of “black people” “allowed” by “white people” because “black people” are expected to act according to a “predictable set of behaviors” that are destructive and dysfunctional?
Or, perhaps the “predictable set of behaviors” to which AGR refers are the virtues of family and stability and success that I see reflected by “black people” in the media on a daily basis. Here, it appears that racist "white people" have promoted a depiction of a stable "black family" on national television (see, e.g., Cosby, Obama, etc.) and by and large the popular press has accepted uncritically these virtues. One can rattle off a long list of “black people” who have been “allowed” to “make in the media” who are exemplars of “traditional values.” Perhaps then racist “white people” are depicting the good qualities that these “black people” exemplify only because these “black people” are “acting white” to please “white people”? If so, are these the “predictable set of behaviors” to which AGR alludes?
So what if “black people” are influenced to adhere to “traditional values”? So is everyone else. Success in the world of celebrity usually does involve “conforming” to the public’s expectations: good and bad. Mike Tyson and Tupac are one extreme. Cosby and Obama the other. That’s the way it is. So what?
To leave the media question for a moment, most informed scholars agree that if more folks stuck in poverty adhered to life governed by more “traditional values” (marriage, sobriety, education, law-abiding), then their life there would improve. Is it wrong to say this? No history lesson is needed here: I know how these ghettos were created. I know about slavery and the oppression of the slaves and the legacy of slavery. I also can see how persons can and do overcome these obstacles and are transformed, despite the claimed actions of all the vile “white people” in the here and now conspiring to hold “black people” down. Usually, to some extent, adherence to “traditional values” is necessary to overcome poverty. These “traditional values” are not “white”: that is a racist charge. The values of marriage, sobriety, education, law-abiding are truly universal. And the “media” does not expect more or less from “black people” in these respects.
So, what are Brando and AGR talking about? Should “black people” be excepted by racist “white people” from the societal conventions to which everyone else in this world must conform to some extent? If so, what are the conventions that are applicable to “black people”? I ask this question only rhetorically, because I hope it is obvious I believe in only one race: the human race.
What is sad is this: Malcolm X learned a long time ago that “white devils” don’t “allow” black people anything because there is no such thing as the “white devils.” Are there racist “white” people? Sure. But not as many as Brando and AGR seem to think. I’d say there are equal percentages of “black people” and other “minorities” who hate “white people” … Sly Stone said it best in “Everday People.”
All this race talk is what is disturbing. I for one recoil when I see the label “race traitor” leveled at a person whose picture is spread on these pages. I recoil when I see an argument that racist white people will change the rules in court to benefit themselves if affirmative action is ended. I am offended by the false claim that “many white people” seek to deny “black people” “full citizenship” in the here and now.
To see every issue thru this lens of race, with the overarching message of "white devils” do this or that, demeans every person in this country who has strived for so long to eradicate such beliefs. These claims will never lead to a better society.
The discussion about faculty hiring is illuminating. Apparently, there is a claim that there is supposedly “racism” even there. That is nonsense. The pettiness and superficiality described by Jeffrey’s comment hurts all applicants. If anyone gets hurt in that process, it is not “minorities.”
Can’t we all just get along?

[AGR]

@ JH--Class is definitely a real and operative thing in American life. There is no question about that. And you are right to be sensitive to it. But, "to everything there is a season", and all that. There is a time and place to talk about the way racial hierarchies have worked ( and continue to work) in American life.

Anon-- "White devils"... really? Just because we're talking about race here does not meant that we (certainly not I) see everything through the prism of race, any more than talking about law means that one sees everything in the world through the prism of law. Race is a legitimate topic of discussion. The OP was about an issue involving race. It makes sense, therefore, that the comments would touch on the topic, too.

[AGR]

By the way, Happy Bastille Day!