"cool funny black guy"

To too many people, the only manifestation of racism they recognize is in its antiquated, truly blatant, KKK-civil-rights-movement-era form, and because this degree of racism has for the most part been extinguished, they believe racism virtually doesn’t exist. In a rudimentary sense it would seem that erasing racism would be a progressive move, but the consequence of such a skewed perspective is that it becomes increasingly difficult for mainstream society to imagine the real-life experiences of minorities and yet more prone to misidentifying latent racism. Beatty successfully points out how this misconception has impaired the public education system; Gunnar’s classmates and teachers ignorantly perpetuate these minor offenses, giving him seemingly harmless labels like the “cool funny black guy”, and while he good-naturedly plays along, he is subject to many instances of stereotyping.

If this novel had a central protest, I think it would be against the contradictory nature that is so ubiquitous in the context of our multicultural environment. In Gunnar’s own words: “My early education consisted of two types of multiculturalism: classroom multiculturalism, which reduced race, sexual orientation, and gender to inconsequence, and schoolyard multiculturalism, where the kids who knew the most Polack, queer, and farmer's daughter jokes ruled.” However well-intentioned, classroom multiculturalism is exceedingly inconsistent: on the one hand, Gunnar’s instructors naively embrace eracism, on the other, they try to show how forward-thinking are by acknowledging and attempting to address what they believe are his racial obstructions. These inconsistencies contribute to his general state of confusion upon moving to Hillside, in the sense that he is unsure what image to adopt in order to be accepted now that he is no longer the “cool funny black guy”. Though Gunnar is eventually able to overcome these impasses, I think Beatty makes a profound point by pointing out a seemingly not so profound transgression, one that is muted and much harder to detect or evaluate.

Chameleon

The White Boy Shuffle is very much a novel that defies stereotypes. Gunnar Kaufman is able to identify with so many different groups that he isn’t compatible with any of them. The best way I can articulate Beatty’s use of this phenomenon is that Gunnar is an example of a transcendent outlier that redefines, if not undefines what it means to be black. Of course, this is not to say that Gunnar isn’t black, but that his qualities too frequently contradict one another for him to be defined in any one light. In fact, he is fluent in so many cultural settings that it’s impossible to classify him as anything other than an individual. As anticipated, we as socially apprehensive adolescents, had high expectations for him and were most bewildered by why, with such high aptitudes in so many fields, he refuses to take the role as a precursor for any of them -- who wouldn’t want to be a basketball star or attend Harvard? In terms of individual identity and not allowing race to limit one’s potential, Beatty’s message is reminiscent of Invisible Man as opposed to the naturalistic leanings of Native Son, but the difference is that while the narrator seeks recognition, Gunnar is a unique individual only for the sense of himself and not for the sake of standing out from others.

Ethnic Notions

The degree to which society has been willing to speak for African Americans from the moment they became Americans never ceases to amaze me. Whilst maintaining ever-insulting misrepresentations, I have found that America’s systematic approach to black racism has also been incredibly cunning. Our past has been tainted with a medley of inaccurate and hyperbolic portrayals of African Americans, each adjusted to accommodate the historical circumstances, resulting in an often paradoxical hodgepodge of characters. For those who missed the Ethnic Notions movie night, this may be a convenient summary.

Jim Crow is probably the black imitation with the most name recognition. Playing a fidgety, dancing caricature meant to impersonate an old handicapped black man, the actor by no means put any effort into accuracy… but alas, his impression impacted the public perception of African Americans indefinitely. Simultaneously, minstrel/Sambo-type characters reinforced the notion of slavery by depicting African American laborers as happy servants. The version of this character I found particularly interesting was “Mammy”, essentially a plump auntie figure who is both happily obedient and fiercely loyal to her white household. What I learned from Ethnic Notions was that she is intentionally not illustrated as a sex symbol so that she will not pose a threat to the mistress. At the same time, she is the matriarch of “her own people”, which while I might add is a stark contrast to women of the “civilized culture” who are designed to remain subservient, it is also an affront to the masculinity of black men. In essence, the general trend of these compliant black characters was to represent harmless menials, thus justifying the institution of slavery.

Before the Abolitionist movement really gained momentum, the media was careful to depict slaves as docile and faithful in order to effectively validate their debasing servitude. Once freedom became a possibility, this was completely reconstructed into two main manifestations. More civil of the two was Zip Coon, an arrogant, ex-slave who bore a flamboyant appearance and equally frivolous speech. His failed attempt at respectability was aimed at mocking the supposed failure of newly freed blacks to adapt to their liberation. Presented in a much more unpleasant format was the “brute”. Too primitive to even deserve a characteristic name, the brute image was especially popular during the Reconstruction era and was intended to demonstrate not only that blacks were incapable of adapting to their freedom, but that they were also incapable of self-control. In the apotheosis of scientific racism, the brute justified a reversion to slavery as well as the killing of African Americans.

In the three centuries since these stereotypes were first introduced, African Americans have been pigeonholed into various roles based on the particular oppression they are facing at any given point in time. For example, the brute image, however prevalent during the Reconstruction Era, would have never been employed during the slave era because it would have suggested that the slaves wanted to be freed and not, as we believed, happy Sambos. I think it is important to remember that between the Sambos, minstrelsy, Jim Crows, Zip Coons, and brutes, this compartmentalization of African Americans has not only been an injustice but also regularly contradictory within itself. So if you’re gonna be racist, at least be consistent.