From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:11:17 GMT

In article <2516@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays) writes:
>
>In article <1992Aug28.183705.16502@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>Ah, so the humor was anti-Semitic (in the sense of anti-Jewish) and
>>anti-Irish.
>
>I have never seen anyone squirm around the facts so much to place a 
>label on something.
>
>"It's Anti-Irish!  What?  Shean isn't Irish?  German, eh?  Anti-German!
>He's Jewish!  Aha!  It's Anti-Jewish!"
>
>All this after having admitted that he has never heard the routines he
>passes judgement on.

I may have heard the routine, which patronized two men being polite to
one another (for Real Men are never polite to one another, I suppose:
instead, they flame each other, right?), once or twice.  Because it was
insulting to the two men, whatever their race, and not specially funny,
I ignored it.  I'm a bit older than many of the TV brains on the net,
which regard knowledge of bad comedy routines and Gilligan's Island as
on par with knowledge of the history of their own country, and as such I
regard Trivia as, well, Trivial.  Not remembering the forgettable
routine, I did see it, initially, as insulting to Irishmen, since
"Shean" could have been the original poster's corruption of "Shaheen."
The dedication to accuracy on the part of at least two discussants in this
thread has already been demonstrated in a bug rate of exactly 100% in
the C code posted by Knucklehead Morton and Henry Schaffer.

Then a poster told us that the Shean character was German and while I
found this unlikely I elected to remind the discussants in this thread
(given their ignorance of all save bad vaudeville trivia) that at the
same time Irish were "funny", Germans were "funny" too.  Then we were
informed that Shean was Jewish, and of course this shows anyone who
finds the routine amusing to be an anti-Semite.  Jews were "funny" at
roughly the same time Irish and Germans were "funny".

The point is not the specific race of two men in a vaudeville routine
which should join Amos 'n Andy in the dust-bin.  It's that you can be
certain that Shean and Gallagher were not "ordinary Americans."  They
were immigrant ethnic stereotypes, and the same sort of vile people who
laughed at them now join Quayle in attacking feminists, Hilary, gays,
blacks and anyone else who's not what they define as an 'merican.

My argument was less "squirming" than exceedingly powerful and
general-purpose and flameproof, even if I must say this myself.
>
>What are you resting your case ON, Ed?  You admit that you know nothing
>about the routine.

It appears, however, that I know far more about the historical
provenance of the routine than you do, and this is what is important.
Do I have to watch every episode of Amos 'n Andy in order to reject it ?
(hint: I rented one, and found it nauseatingly racist and not specially
funny, which is how I remember Gallagher and whoever.)

>
>He hasn't described the humor at all.  He's merely told you the ethnic
>background of Gallagher and Shean, because YOU made an incorrect 
>assumption about it.  Evidently, you find the sound of Irish names 
>humorous and assumed that's why others find Gallagher and Shean funny.

No, Americans in their benign moments used to find Irish names
(including many of my forbear's names) funny.  In their not-so-benign
moments they said "no Irish need apply."  I don't find Gallagher funny.
>
>Should the government have the right to suppress speech because it can
>be defined as hate speech?  Yes or No.  Responses?

No, Joe, because the Constitution (specifically the bill of rights)
specifies that this is forbidden.  The St Paul law enhanced the
punishment when a tort or crime had already been committed, and the
state is well within its rights to withold some Constitutional rights
when a crime is committed.  Viktora's actions were not speech by even
the most liberal interpretation of the word, and please don't fling flag
burning in my face, for I happen to view flag burning as wrong, and an
insult to the men who had no choice but to follow the flag to their
deaths.  Got it yet?
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16703 alt.dads-rights:2152 soc.men:15708