The Cosby Show's portrayal of African Americans and the African American Family

            The 1980’s was a time of great change throughout the United States. With the reelection of Ronald Regan came a feeling of progress. African Americans began to take a more prominent role in many fields but particularly in the entertainment world. Hip-hop became a musical phenomena. More and more leading roles in film and stage were given to African Americans. Television, some say, was even further ahead of this curve. Shows like, Who’s the Boss? and My Two Dads broke social norms and allowed for males to play what had in the past been reserved as a maternal role in raising a family, while shows like Webster and Diff’rent Strokes broke the color barriers by portraying white families raising African American children. The Cosby Show however, was even further ahead of its time. It was the first network television series to portray an African American family as the protagonists. With this trailblazing transition came praise as well as harsh critique and even criticism. There was a major call for The Cosby Show to portray a realistic African American family, dealing with issues that many African Americans faced. Many said that a comedy series merely furthered the stereotype of African Americans as being the comedic relief as opposed to dealing with serious issues. No matter the criticisms of the show, one thing is quite clear: The Cosby Show crossed racial borders that no other show could and helped to improve race relations by projecting universal values with which both Whites and Blacks could identify.

            Leslie Inniss and Joe Feagin’s article “The Cosby Show: The View From the Black Middle Class” offers a unique perspective on the series. More than 150 middle class Black Americans were interviewed about their perceptions of The Cosby Show. Both extremes were offered by those interviewed. Some argued that the show dealt with issues that crossed racial boundaries such as riding a bike, sexual maturity, marital quarrels etc. However many others argued that the show lacked any sense of racial disparity. The characters rarely, if ever, discuss racial inequality which some argue led white Americans to “confirm their beliefs that affirmative action is no longer needed because Blacks now enjoy the same opportunities as Whites.” (Inniss, Feagin; 693) This led even further, as some argued, to cause Whites to take the show as proving that “anyone can make it in the United States and that Black Americans should stop complaining about discrimination” (Inniss, Feagin; 693)

            The Huxtable family is considered by scholars to be middle class, however, the occupations of the parents, the clothing worn by the characters and the pure cleanliness and decoration within their New York City brownstone seems to indicate otherwise. Mr. Heathcliff “Cliff” Huxtable (Bill Cosby) is a Doctor (who in one episode wins doctor of the year) and his wife Clair (Phylicia Rashad) is an attorney. Their children own a wide range of outfits and their home is always neat and tidy. This, some argue, is the basis as to why this family is an inaccurate portrayal of African American families at the time. One African American interviewed by Inniss and Feagin asks, “How many black families do you know where there are two parents with post graduate degrees raising four perfectly behaved children?”  The problem it seems, is that The Cosby Show portrays itself as a somewhat realistic look-in at an African American family. Because of this many viewers and scholars have become critical of it. Claiming that everyday issues effecting African Americans are ignored.

            No matter the critics, it is clear that The Cosby Show offers a unique view into the lives of African Americans. In “An Early Spring” (Season 3, Episode 6) Cliff Huxtable teaches Rudy (the youngest daughter) how to ride a bike. Vanessa worries about covering up a zit and Theo studies for a math test. People of all races can relate to each one of these characters’ specific tasks in this episode. The scenes in which Cliff and Rudy interact as he teaches her to ride her bike offer an even more important undertone. At a time when there was a severely high rate of single African American mothers raising children, Cliff Huxtable serves as an example for African-American fathers. He shows the joy that comes from his concerted effort to help his daughter reach a milestone in her life. The chemistry between the two actors (Cosby and Raven Simone) gives the audience a true feeling of familial love.

            More importantly than setting a good example for African Americans was moving away from stereotypes that allowed White Americans to continue to look down upon Black Americans. Cosby said, in an interview with Robert Johnson that he was returning to television to save viewers from “a vast wasteland” of black stereotypes. Cosby was tired of seeing “car chases, hookers [and] hookers with Black pimps.” (Inniss, Feagin; 695) His show instead portrayed positive images of a Black family to its wide audience with the particular message that children are the same no matter the color of their skin.

            The major problem with the argument that The Cosby Show is bad because it does not deal with racial issues is that no other show was asked to deal with racism. It is simply unfair to expect a comedy to be dealing with major social issues that would make many viewers uncomfortable. It is important to remember that no matter the qualms with the show, it is undeniable that the show did serve as a positive portrayal of the Black family. Because of this it was important for the show to continue airing. Constantly dealing with racial issues would most definitely have resulted in a decrease in viewership and therefore a decrease in the number of individuals observing a positive portrayal of a Black family unit. However, race was not all together ignored by the show, many prominent black entertainers, thinkers and activists were celebrated on the show. 

List of prominent African American guests:

·      Dizzy Gillespie (Jazz performer)

·      Donald McKayle (dancer/choreographer)

·      Alicia Keys (Singer/songwriter)

·      Lena Horne

·      Family performs Ray Charles song at Wedding Aniversary (Season 2 episode 3)

·      Excerpt of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I have a Dream” speech (aired 4 days before the first observance of MLK day. ) (Season 2 Episode12)

·      Art Blakey (jazz drummer)

·      Percy and Jimmy Heath (Jazz musicians)

·      Tommy Flannigan (Jazz pianist)

·      Joe Wilder (jazz trumpeter)

·      Stevie Wonder

·      Roscoe Lee Brown (director and actor)

·      Valerie Briscoe Hooks (olympic runner)

·      Joshua Culbreath

·      50^th wedding celebration preformace of James Brown’s “I got that feelin” (33 E3)

·      Sinbad

·      Malinda Williams (actress)

·      Joe Seneca (Actor)

·      Sondra’s twins named after Nelson Mandela and his wife Winnie (S5 E6)

·      Debbie Allen (Dancer)

·      Amahad Rashad

·      Michael Jackson

·      Sammy Davis Jr.

·      Moses Gunn (Actor)

·      Harold Perrineau

·      B.B. King

·      St. James Presbyterian Church (Harlem)

·      Bern Nadette Stains

·      Leslie Uggams (Actress/Singer)

·      Joe Black

·      Frank Robinson

·      Lynne Thigpen (Actress)

·      Miriam Makeba (singer/ civil rights activist)

·      Debbie Morgan

·      Margaret Avery (actress)

·      CCH Pounder

·      Mariou Bauza

·      Uptown String Quartet

Paper 4 Draft

Many people say that the United States has only lost one war in her history; and that war was Vietnam. It comes as no surprise that the US presence in Vietnam is considered wrong by modern day Americans. We call it a failure, an unwarranted plethora of death, or even make the claim that the US attempted to act as the world police in a war we had no stake in. But anyone can tell you that this is because hindsight is 20-20. We can write off Vietnam as a mistake in US history but the truth remains that many people felt that our involvement in the war was not only just but necessary. Tim O’Brien’s memoir If I Die in a Combat Zone offers a new perspective on the war, as it was perceived by combat soldiers on the ground. The book makes a clear statement from the outset that an American presence in Vietnam was not only unjust but also immoral by portraying those against the war as intelligent and caring individuals and those for the war as callous, immature and uneducated.
As the novel begins O’Brien makes it clear that the speaker is wholeheartedly against the war and in a constant battle between the desire to be brave and the desire to be just. **Deciding whether or not to flea the country** ch5
Those against the war are capable of intelligent discussion as to their reasons **discussion with chaplain p55-60 and discussion with leuitenant p 61-67
Those for the war are incapable of intelligent discussion about the war and cannot offer a reasonable explanation for the war
To show how bad the war was for the soldiers O’Brien makes the point that they are treated as “cattle” and
• Simmilar environment to school children earn things like schoolchildren “gook” “motherfucker” “dink” and “tit” like going to school
These school children are then thrown into the battle fields where they are scared “out of their minds” ** few paragraphs showing the gunfire and crazy suff that the foot soldier has to go through ** specifically Ch 9 “Ambush”
Link to “EMPIRE”

Paper 3 Draft

Just as the multicolored leaves of the trees of autumn 1929 fell so did the United States Stock Market. Thursday, October 24, 1929, Monday, October 28 and Tuesday, October 29, brought with them widespread panic and despair throughout the country. Finger pointed moved from executives, to local government to average Joe and back again in an attempt to find the cause of this disastrous crash. When blame could not be definitively placed the mood shifted from anger to hope and thus the spotlight shifted from the culprits to the hero. Americans yearned for, then President, Herbert Hoover to save the country. After years of negative progress including the controversial non-veto of the Hawley-Smoot Tarrif Bill (should I make a footnote to explain what this is?) Americans were in need of more than just a change. They were in need of jobs, money and for many, just basic necessities. Franklin Deleno Roosevelt promised all three. Roosevelt offered his “New Deal” program which would provide recovery of the economy, government sponsored jobs for the unemployed and reform the monopolies in the banking and financial systems. While Hoover believed in non-action, Roosevelt believed in immediate action that involved not just the government but everyday people. Roosevelt tapped into the American desire for an individual to feel a part of some larger body striving to a common goal through, in effect, propaganda that romanticized the American ideal of hard work and cooperation.
In his September, 1932 Common Wealth Club Address, Roosevelt constantly points out the value of group cooperation. In the second sentence of his speech Roosevelt refers to the nation as “a group of citizen leaders interested in fundamental problems of government …” (FDR, par. 1) Without hesitation Roosevelt claims, as fact, that the nation is a group working together toward a common goal. He goes on to say that he,”… want[s] to speak not of parties, but of universal principles.” (FDR, par.2) Immediately Roosevelt has laid the groundwork for his position: we are all Americans striving toward a common goal, not as individuals or even groups of individuals but as one cohesive unit. He praises the men of the Commonwealth Club (consisting of well respected individuals) for thinking, “ … beyond their own immediate tasks, [and] beyond their own individual interests” (FDR, par. 7) with the hope that those listening outside of the walls of the club would follow their lead.
As the speech continues Roosevelt moves on to speak about a set of rights that every American will have. He promises, four main rights of man: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear, on the condition that the individuals obtaining these new rights are working toward the common good, within the parameters of FDRs New Deal.

If we dissect each freedom we can see the benefits both for man but more importantly for the furthering of FDR’s agenda. The first, freedom of speech, allows individuals to speak out for what they believe in but, in fact, it also gives Roosevelt a longer leash. There can be no argument against works of art (film, photography, painting, etc.) promoting the New Deal. (The majority of the art released during the Roosevelt regime was financed by his New Deal government therefore it obviously contained a strong slant in favor of this government.)

The second, freedom of religion, of course, allowed individuals to practice his own religion freely but it also eliminates much of the contention between religions and allows everyone to band together regardless of religious preference.

The third, freedom from want, works primarily in favor of the government as opposed to working for the people. Freedom from want is, in essence, saying, “If you do what I ask, you’ll have everything you need.”

The fourth, freedom from fear, is similar to the previous promise. Again, in essence it says, “if you do what I ask, we will protect you from all your fears (financial, physical, religious, etc.)

Go on to say:
• Once individuals willing to buy into Roosevelt’s promises he was set up to promote his ideas and gain further support while in office.
o Fireside chats
o Paintings, movies, soap operas, etc (all make the point, we know how you feel, join together and we can fix this)
• Propaganda:
o mural of building a dam (William Gropper)
o Rosie the riveter
o Gold diggers (working together to make the show)
• Each make the statement that working together brings great success and in gold diggers: fortune

Gold Diggers of 1933 Youtube

Click Here for Gold Diggers of 1933 on Youtube

Paper 2 Rough Draft

Okay so here is my draft. It's more of an in depth outline really, I find it easier to get my thoughts down this way and edit this until I'm pretty comfortable with it then I turn it into a flowing piece and purely focus on language edits etc.

Note I am answering question 2.

My questions for you are: Am I stretching too much? Sara really wants material goods but even when she does have them (ex: scene at the freshman dance) she is not accepted. Can I argue that Sara was special and bypassed the material stage or that she combined the two stages (material acceptance followed by intellectual acceptance?) Any other ideas/points I can make?

Thanks,
Adam

I. Introduction:
• Turn to the 20th century brought with it the desire for material goods
• Whether or not you had the opportunity to be accepted depended on wealth
• The demands of native-born white American society required acceptable appearance, “proper values” and intelligence
o Immigrants arrived having none of this and only when each requirement was carefully fulfilled was the immigrant accepted into white America
• In order to have new representation for all newly arrived immigrants many had to blaze the trail.
• New representation required: acceptance by white America through possession of material goods and only then could that individual prove himself/his people mentally
Thesis: In order to change representations of newly-arrived immigrants many tenured immigrants had to assimilate themselves into white-American society using a two step approach: first gain physical acceptance based on outward appearance and possessions and follow with intellectual stimulation
(The point I am trying to make but can’t seem to find the right wording: new immigrants as a whole could not be accepted until a significant number of individuals proved themselves “worthy” in white-American society. In order to do this an immigrant must first assimilate himself through material goods such as clothing, makeup, jewelry, furniture, etc. Only then will white-Americans give that individual the opportunity to prove himself intellectually)
II. Body:
Paragraph A: American society changes to one that strongly values material wealth which is evident through appearance.
o Piess: New production of cosmetics p372
o Piess: Built a national consumption base by “convinc[ing] women that being ‘painted’ was not only respectable but a requirement of womanhood. “ p373
o Men had to be well groomed, in fancy clothing
o Success: “by 1900 the use of face powerder seems to have become more common among urban middle-class women. . . even the subtle application of rouge an d eyebrow pencil, if concealed wasd deemed acceptable” p373
• Make the point that urban middle class was the primary goal of all immigrants even if a more extreme goal was reached urban middle class is part of the path of “rags to riches” therefore styles of urban middle class filter through immigrant communities and individuals trying to assimilate.

Paragraph B: Immigrants seen as “the other” (Barthes) and therefore pushed aside and ignored (I will argue that Barthes does not believe that “the other” does physically exist but rather their lack of existence falls in the “out of sight out of mind” realm of non-existence)
o Results in discrimination/excommunication of immigrants through un-required yet intentional separation between white-America and new-America
o This excommunication elevates white-America to the level where it has the ability to either take-in or further push away Immigrants
o Citable Evidence: Introduction, Foreward and early chapters of Yezierska’s “Bread Givers”
• Point that the Smolinsky’s community is identical to all other immigrant communities; it is a literal relocation of a (in this case) Russian village

Paragraph C: Breaking free of this “ghetto” first requires an entrance into a society of consumption and material wealth.
o No one in white-America needs/wants to associate/work with someone who looks/acts like an immigrant
o Include description of “immigrant” stereotype (Chapter 1, Yezierska description of clothing/apartment p6.
o Immigrant’s desire to assimilate can be helped by the beauty culture (material goods): Piess: “Beauty culture promised self-transformation that was both internal and external, an idea that resonated powerfully in American middle-class culture” p375

(Expendable?)Paragraph D: Beauty culture valued skin complexion as opposed to bone structure or physical features,
o this allowed immigrants one of their only short cuts, light creams and powders would make their complexion acceptable, there was little to no discussion of the differences in their physical features.
o Masha with powders and make up
o Sara, first make up purchase, to fit in with girls at her job/when she becomes a teacher.
Paragraph E: Slowly those immigrants who gave into the beauty/material culture became respected enough by white-America so that the individual could begin to prove himself through intellect.
Rest of Essay:
o Sara gains enough respect from her appearance by her classmates and is then given the opportunity to prove herself intellectually, her mother knows she’s made it just by her appearance when she comes to visit after college.
o Material goods very important to sara (her own space end of book 2)

General Statement

Throughout the inauguration weekend the elite media (NY Times, Washington Post, BBC, NPR etc) have elevated President Barack Obama to a level only reached by the likes of Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr. and even Moses. This has made president Obama untouchable in the sense that people (the media in particular) would not dare speak badly of Martin Luther King Jr.,Lincoln, etc. therefore it comes as no surprise that the coverage of the inauguration consisted almost entirely of purely objective observations and high praise for our new president. The few times that the elite press dared to speak negatively about our president they discussed a the error made during the swearing in ceremony (and even then the press blames John Roberts, not Obama) and more recently the lack of transparency shown by the whitehouse staff (notice I say staff and not Obama) during the re-swearing in.

Initial Notes

Washington Post -- rare comparisons to JFK, Lincoln, MLK but only when there are obvious connections. (Ex: Obama and MLK both worked as community organizers for African American groups)

• Common theme of race/equality.
  
• Often discuss "father from Kenya, mother from Kansas"
• Pound the fact that he was born in Hawaii, biracial.
  

Names like Lincoln, Johnson, JFK, MLK thrown in here and there. (Ex: one friend of Obama ,staying at the Blair House, was assigned the room in which Abraham Lincoln liked to take naps)

Overall almost entirely objective including analytical pieces.

NY Times

• Make a point to note that Bush/Cheney booed at Inauguration ceremonies.
  
• Peter Baker points out the mishap in the recitation of the swearing in,
  
• Point out poverty that Obama family comes from
  
• "stepgrandmother only recently got electricity and running water in her metal-roofed shack
• Strong emphasis on family roots/diversity/race of Obama family. Although Obama only spoke briefly about it.
  
• Points out bluntly that Obama rejects his predecessor.
• Constant use of quote from speech "we must reject our false choice between safety and our American ideals"