Racist?  I had to read it several times before I caught the mistake and then it made sense to me.  It should read "The zoo has an African lion and the White House has a lying African."  Is this racist?  Does it suggest a belief in inherent differences among the human race?



This one doesn't even talk about race other than in metaphorical terms.  If you assume the monkey is a black guy then maybe you're the racist and not the kid holding the sign.





Is using the word "bro" racist?



Is this racist?  Slavery isn't just for black people, except in American history.



Is it racist to compare Obama with a character played by Gary Coleman?





Okay, now we've got a country of people being mentioned  which might mix with memories of that old American ditty "Go home nigger!"  Is this racist?



There seems to be a little fear of turn about being fair play.  Is this a collective irrational reaction from past racism?  It should be noted this sign makes the distinction for which race it would advocate slavery.



This sign brings in the country of people as well as suspicions of President Obama being a foreigner mixed with a black television from the 1990's.  Is it racist when the bearer adopts Homey the Clown as their mascot?



Um, okay.





You'd get your ass kicked for holding a sign like that in a lot of places!



Why's it got to be about mixed people?



He might be right, because I think that's racist!



In response to the many charges of racism, Steven Olsen wrote an interesting piece about his 

With this in mind, it isn't surprising we're a bit out of practice interpretting racism.  This leaves the question, is the letter Mark Williams posted to his blog July 14th 2010 racist?  There's no point now in visiting Mark's blog to read his letter, because he replaced it with "a personal note ."  The comments thread for his blog post, however, is still available and reveals Mark's rationale for his fictional letter being a form of satire.  Posted below is a copy  of Mark's letter as recorded by at least two websites.  The text seems to pretty well match comments made by Mark Williams on his blog, so there's little reason to believe the letter was tampered with in any way.  Keep in mind as you read the letter that Mark claims this is satire; therefore, a working definition of satire  might prove helpful.

Satire

1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.

You decide if Mark's piece is satire or racial stereotyping.

Dear Mr. Lincoln

We Colored People have taken a vote and decided that we don’t cotton to that whole emancipation thing.  Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards.  That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop! In fact we held a big meeting and took a vote in Kansas City this week.  We voted to condemn a political revival of that old abolitionist spirit called the ‘tea party movement’. The tea party position to “end the bailouts” for example is just silly.  Bailouts are just big money welfare and isn’t that what we want all Coloreds to strive for?  What kind of racist would want to end big money welfare?  What they need to do is start handing the bail outs directly to us coloreds!  Of course, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is the only responsible party that should be granted the right to disperse the funds. And the ridiculous idea of “reduce[ing] the size and intrusiveness of government.”  What kind of massa would ever not want to control my life?  As Coloreds we must have somebody care for us otherwise we would be on our own, have to think for ourselves and make decisions! The racist tea parties also demand that the government “stop the out of control spending.”  Again, they directly target Colored People.  That means we Colored People would have to compete for jobs like everybody else and that is just not right. Perhaps the most racist point of all in the tea parties is their demand that government “stop raising our taxes.”  That is outrageous!    How will we Colored People ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn?  Totally racist!  The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society? Mr. Lincoln, you were the greatest racist ever.  We had a great gig.  Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house.  Please repeal the 13th and 14th Amendments and let us get back to where we belong.

Sincerely, Precious Ben Jealous, Tom’s Nephew  National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Head Colored Person

The first task in identifying this letter as satire means we must identify the vice or folly being denounced, exposed or derided.  Mr. Williams's letter is difficult to critique on this aspect, because there doesn't seem to be a central point centrally made.  It seems the fictitious vice being denounced early in the letter is freedom; therefore, we might read this letter saying black people don't want to be free.  Colored People want to be slaves which must be sarcasm or serious racism, because who doesn't want to be free?  Beyond the opening few sentences, the sarcasm is difficult to unfold though because it becomes unclear if this letter attacks Mr. Jealous, the NAACP or black people in general.

Since black people aren't commonly referred to as Colored anymore, it is possible to interpret this letter as being directed at the NAACP as Mark Williams claims in his blog comments section.

This letter lacks clarity possibly due to the letter's poorly constructed tone and mood.  One reader in Williams's comment section points out, if Mark Williams read the letter maybe it would be easier to interpret.  This might be true because Mark would make his tone clear with the inflection of his voice.  Left to read the letter myself, it sounds like Williams perpetuates racial stereotypes dating back to 18th Century America.

Williams's racial stereotyping begins early with his use of the word cotton.  Emancipation's link to black people in America and cotton is pretty direct.  Emancipation freed black people from picking cotton, but maybe this was an attempt at humor and actually could be considered funny on some level.  If humor was what Mark was attempting, then he may have succeeded depending on who is reading his letter.  However, lines like "having to work for real" and "massa" seem like degrading relapses to the buffoonish pickaninny caricature black people in America lived under for over a century.  It makes any humorous interpretation difficult when Mark writes what was openly said about black people in the Jim Crow South.

In my read, Mr. Williams's satire really falls off the track when he starts talking about big money welfare.  Deriding the vice of big taxes seems to be directly related with black people benefitting by receiving the money as welfare.  It's difficult to turn Mark's picture of happy, black people not paying their fair share into an attack on the organizations which advocate for welfare.  This tone of confusion is only exacerbated by lines like "The tea party expects coloreds to be productive memebers of society?"  First, what does the question mark mean and second, wouldn't it just be easier for Mark to say exactly what he means?

Is this sarcasm, irony or ridicule? 
Is this truth or fiction? 
How do we read these lines among all the rest, Mr. Williams?

Mark Williams wrote this like he's Leonardo Da Vinci in Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code.  Apparently he's hiding his meaning everywhere and you just need to be brave enough to find it.  When it comes to reading though, there are at least two main schools of thought on interpretation.  One school says, there's a truth about what something written means.  This school of thought says text has a definitive and exact meaning separate from the reader and the author.  The other school of thought suggests the reader brings as much prejudice into the text as the author.  Somewhere between the author, the text and the reader a meaning is created.  As long as the meaning is grounded in the text, supported by quotes, then the meaning is valid.  I agree with the second school of thought.

However, I understand there's a fine line between racist rhetoric and satirical prose.  So let's start sharpening our interpretation skills because I'm predicting this won't be the last American text charged with racism.