JULY WRESTLING DISCUSSION

[Bustronaut]

#NotAllWhites

[JohnnyJ]

You could really make similar arguments about anything wrestling related with a big enough sample size. 

 

For example, over the past decade there have been three wrestlers with the WWE from Long Island (Ryder, Hawkins and Barreta)  Each were young, with pretty good looks and decent enough in the ring.

 

First, Ryder and Hawkins were portrayed as brothers because everyone from Long Island looks the same. 

 

Then when they split, Ryder was given the gimmick of a walking, talking stereotype of a Long Islander. Then when he actually got over without help from the office, he was buried. 

 

Hawkins spent a few years jobbing before being placed in a tag team where he portrayed a male stripper. Further embarrassment was sure to follow if his tag partner had not had enough and asked for his release.

 

Barreta has the distinction of being a John Cena project. You would assume that this would mean Barreta would've gotten tv time. Instead, he got released at a time when no one was getting released.

 

WWE has a Long Island problem.  

[mco543]

The Rusev talking point is one that really needs to go away. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with how the face side of the roster is constructed. Fandango worked almost exclusively with all the guys Rusev did, the only difference being that Rusev is a monster heel who won and moved on and Fandango is a comedy heel who traded wins back and fourth with them forever.

[rovert]

Inside the brand new issue of the magazine. Finlay Martin says that this is the final edition of the magazine:

Have had a love/hate or combative relationship with the magazine the last ten years. But it was a real outlet for UK/Irish fanaticism and for those who went further - wrestlers extending to WWE/TNA stars to managers, promoters, writers, podcasters, other publishers etc. At launch it's approach and design was really revolution. Helped spread the word about ECW, Puro and Lucha in particular. Also gave me something to read in class during secondary school.

The loss of any long standing publication and a small business sucks.

[Cristobal]

Yes, let's completely divorce race/ethnicity from the Slavic heel gimmick, there's no connection there.

The author gets shit wrong, but the basic premise, that wrestling is stuck in a bygone era when it comes to its portrayal of race, is entirely correct. People deriding this as "PC" and lauding wrestling for not bothering to evolve are just entirely too comfortable with their privilege.

[cool arrow]

Well, we almost made it halfway through the month...

[Brian Fowler]

"There is nothing I hate more than a bad argument for a position I hold."

[odessasteps]

:

[Greggulator]

I haven't read the article yet. Wrestling has moved passed the "black wrestlers are impervious to head butts" trope. But we still see Naomi who uses an ass-based finisher (and twerks) because, you know, African-American ladies have big asses and love to show that off.

Cryme Time was so woeful and repugnant. I get that it was supposed to be a "Homeboy Shopping Network" thing but it was so dumb.

[Cristobal]

Had an A-A friend point this out: "How many black wrestlers in WWE come out to music that is not identifiably 'black'?" i.e. rap/R&B. The only answer was Alicia Fox.

[MoeCristyV.1.6]

#NotAllWhites

When did Ziggler have a promo with Pitbull?

*mindblown*

[SirSmUgly]

I have to say that, at least in terms of how black wrestlers are portrayed, I don't mind some of the trashy stereotypical stuff. For example, I see why Slick is problematic, but Slick is just a very black-specific caricature that I have met before in real life, and that part of it is really funny and spot-on to me. It's like Crush being an Aryan biker, which is problematic in some ways, but also at least a caricature based on a real, specific type of person (as I have met those types before, too). 

 

I tend to be more bothered by portrayals of people that I perceive to have less social capital than I do. For example, Ultimate Warrior cutting a homophobic promo on Goldust in 1996 bothers me WAY more than Lex Luger cutting a racist promo on Ron Simmons or HHH cutting a racist promo on Booker T because I perceive that gay folks have it worse than I do in that regard. I would find the stereotypical way that WWE would treat a trans-gendered character to be just totally unacceptable from the get-go because trans-gendered folks have it far worse than I do in this country. 

 

Just one man's observation. 

[The Comedian]

Hey does that article mention anything about Vince's obsession with black guys bleaching their hair blonde? (Reed, Koko, MOM, Benjamin)

 

I always wondered about that shit...

[Cristobal]

I have to say that, at least in terms of how black wrestlers are portrayed, I don't mind some of the trashy stereotypical stuff. For example, I see why Slick is problematic, but Slick is just a very black-specific caricature that I have met before in real life, and that part of it is really funny and spot-on to me. It's like Crush being an Aryan biker, which is problematic in some ways, but also at least a caricature based on a real, specific type of person (as I have met those types before, too).

So, just to be clear, you're absolutely fine with negative racial stereotypes as wrestling gimmicks as long as there's people in real life who resemble those gimmicks?

[SirSmUgly]

 

I have to say that, at least in terms of how black wrestlers are portrayed, I don't mind some of the trashy stereotypical stuff. For example, I see why Slick is problematic, but Slick is just a very black-specific caricature that I have met before in real life, and that part of it is really funny and spot-on to me. It's like Crush being an Aryan biker, which is problematic in some ways, but also at least a caricature based on a real, specific type of person (as I have met those types before, too).

So, just to be clear, you're absolutely fine with negative racial stereotypes as wrestling gimmicks as long as there's people in real life who resemble those gimmicks?

 

 

I think, in the end, I am. I know that sounds awful, but there's just a major difference to me between something like Slick and something like Kamala. One is a caricature that at least has some semblance of reality, and recognizing that semblance is what makes the character enjoyable or at least partially authentic. The other is a caricature that was just made up in order to keep the "Dark Continent" myth going. 

 

Stereotypes and stock characters will never fall out of use in entertainment because broad strokes are typically easier to present and write for/about. The problem really is the audience being too uncritical (or too stupid) to understand the difference between a stereotype and reality. For example, Dave Chappelle presented stereotypes on his sketch show (though much of the time, his goal was to mock those stereotypes), but there were people in the audience that didn't get it. 

 

But I do want to stress that for me, it 1.) depends on the context of each gimmick and 2.) whether or not the person presenting the stereotype actually believes the stereotype to be true. If Michael Hayes has someone do a "black preacher" gimmick, that's way more of an issue to me. 

[Roman]

Haven't read the article yet, but was there any mention of Ahmed Johnson?  He was on the fast track at first(bodyslamming Yokozuna right out of the gate), but injuries derailed him...he could have been pushed to that level at the rate he was going.

 

I absolutely loved Ahmed Johnson. He was always so pumped-up and intense, and his Pearl River Plunge had something fantastic to me. Watching him feud with Vader and the rest of Jim Cornette's ilk was great.

[JohnnyJ]

Anything can be construed as objectionable if you want it to be. I didn’t know Naomis moveset was borderline racist til today. Now I’ll fast forward through her matches twice as fast.

 

Remember, this is a company who in the last decade:

 

A.) Featured a very short wrestler they dressed up as a bull who isn't treated like a human.

B)  Featured A very short wrestler who is treated as a leprechaun who was given the gift of speech by Mick Foley dressed as Santa Claus.

C) An owner who mocked on national television the facial impairment of his play by play guy.

D) A diva who was repeatedly fat shamed on national television.

E) Foreigners who routinely come out to foreign stock music right out of a 1940s looney tunes cartoon.

F) A vegan who spent his first two years in the company being mercilessly mocked for it.

G) An Irishman who likes to drink and have a good time.

H) Tag team champs who were introduced as wild savage samoans

 

I don’t think that any group is singled out worse than any others but race is always a hot button issue which for some reason brings more discussion.

[Bustronaut]

You're cool with Hornswaggle then?

[Cristobal]

I have to say that, at least in terms of how black wrestlers are portrayed, I don't mind some of the trashy stereotypical stuff. For example, I see why Slick is problematic, but Slick is just a very black-specific caricature that I have met before in real life, and that part of it is really funny and spot-on to me. It's like Crush being an Aryan biker, which is problematic in some ways, but also at least a caricature based on a real, specific type of person (as I have met those types before, too).

So, just to be clear, you're absolutely fine with negative racial stereotypes as wrestling gimmicks as long as there's people in real life who resemble those gimmicks?

 

I think, in the end, I am. I know that sounds awful, but there's just a major difference to me between something like Slick and something like Kamala. One is a caricature that at least has some semblance of reality, and recognizing that semblance is what makes the character enjoyable or at least partially authentic. The other is a caricature that was just made up in order to keep the "Dark Continent" myth going. 

 

Stereotypes and stock characters will never fall out of use in entertainment because broad strokes are typically easier to present and write for/about. The problem really is the audience being too uncritical (or too stupid) to understand the difference between a stereotype and reality. For example, Dave Chappelle presented stereotypes on his sketch show (though much of the time, his goal was to mock those stereotypes), but there were people in the audience that didn't get it. 

 

But I do want to stress that for me, it 1.) depends on the context of each gimmick and 2.) whether or not the person presenting the stereotype actually believes the stereotype to be true. If Michael Hayes has someone do a "black preacher" gimmick, that's way more of an issue to me.

But doesn't this mean you're just deliberately making the choice to be uncritical because you're amused by the gimmick and/or can relate to it from personal experience? Do we need the involvement of an overt racist like Michael Hayes to decide that something is (or at least should be) a relic of a bygone era?

I don't think any of the people (or at the very worst, most of the people) behind Cryme Tyme sat down and thought "Let's see, how can we package these two black wrestlers in the most insulting way possible?" but given the end product, I don't see how we could say there wasn't a pretty hefty streak of racism that went into that.

Stereotypes DO fall out of use. They fall out of use when society stands up and says "No, that's not okay." When's the last time you saw anyone in blackface without it being apparent that it was presenting the person or character that chose to put on blackface as a moron? Hell, for me, it was Piper.

[Patrick B.]

Ahmed Johnson was a guilty pleasure at the time.

 

Oddly, so was Cryme Tyme and so was Kerwin White.

 

I remember a backstage bit where Kerwin warned Vince against traveling through certain neighborhoods because there were "a lot of Mexicans" there.  So wrong.

[Roman]

What about corpse-fucking demons? That's a stereotype that, I firmly believe, needs to go away. It's giving perfectly respectable demons a bad name.

[SirSmUgly]

I get what you're saying, Cristobal, and certainly, I am not being uncritical. My own philosophy is that I am negatively critical of gimmicks that use damaging or still widely-believed stereotypes and that when a gimmick that stereotypes a group with less social capital than me is used, I defer to members of the group to tell me whether or not the gimmick is okay or not, harmful or (mostly) harmless. 

 

I think we can think about and positively OR negatively criticize a stereotype while enjoying the stereotype at the same time. Shelton Benjamin's momma was a stereotype, but was nicely acted and was entertaining despite the fact that she was playing a stereotype, and in the end, I don't think it did all that much to negatively affect the portrayal of black mothers. I'm sure there's some idiot out there that took away a negative judgment and acted upon that judgment based on the character, but I think most of us just liked watching Shelton get browbeaten by his overbearing mother. That's a universal experience!

 

For another example, "Seinfeld" is one of my favorite shows ever, and that trades on both white Protestant and Jewish stereotypes (and subverts them sometimes, to be fair). It trades on "old person" stereotypes, too, but I don't think those stereotypes advance ageism or anti-Semitism, etc.  

 

I also would say that not every stereotype is alike and it depends on context. Shelton's momma is definitely a less-damaging stereotype than Kamala, which helps it to be at least somewhat more acceptable. I don't cringe when I see a Jewish mother exhorting for her son to eat something already. Maybe it's that some stereotypes are accepted as stereotypes and are not accepted as labels for every member of the group, and those stereotypes are okay. Crush as Aryan biker isn't damaging because it doesn't label all white people. Thinking about it today, Slick's character is much less of a stereotype that people would actually use to label all black people. Well, except for the fried chicken thing from "Jive Soul Bro," though I even hear that stereotype repeated less often in these days. 

 

I loved Cryme Tyme, by the way. That was a case where the stereotype of young black men as criminals shared enough of the trickster character markers with something like Brer Rabbit that the gimmick turned into a weird modern homage to the black trickster character. Cryme Tyme as sinister heels would be much more problematic because there is is a significant amount of people that believe that young black men are like that. But as faces, they are Brer Rabbit (or Bugs Bunny, for a less racially-based trickster character).

[Cristobal]

You're letting yourself off pretty easily, here. "Can I detect any harm? No? Must be fine, then." Did Kamala turn into a positive role model when he turned on Kimchee? Of course not. Becoming the noble savage did not make Kamala a positive gimmick. No, Cryme Tyme were not "homages" to anything. They were sneaky black criminals. Being babyfaces doesn't make that a good thing.

And quit bringing up Crush. He was never called "Aryan", and in any event it's trying to equate how a racial minority is portrayed with how the racial majority is. You being fine with Slick because Seinfeld is nonsense. Really, this is a shitload of justification for why you're fine with racist gimmicks.

[mattdangerously]

The Usos have never been portrayed as wild savages.

[Playa Shunna Ver 3.0]

I'll never forget that time Roddy Piper shattered racial stereotypes in wrestling when he painted himself half black.  That was like Dr. King's speech in physical form.  Also, WWE is not racist because they play the first line of "I have a Dream" once a year.