PBA09nrqos7q
The most effective, most successful of comedians do one thing the moment they step into the spotlight of the main stage: make a single sweeping glance at the audience. Doing so will make them gauge whether to inevitably sacrifice a prepped up routine for another for the sole purpose of satisfying the listeners. He starts. The comedian feels the vibe generated by his punch lines as he injects one technique off the book after another. He makes a mental note of what most effectively gets through and what doesn’t. What they understand and don’t. What’s proper and taboo. His sophistication lies in delighting the hardest crowd to please without seeming to break into sweat. He’d finish, bow, and then exit. If he gets applauded, it means more than him being successful in his craft. A single person’s clap is his gesture of respect. Make a roomful react the same way and he’ll know he is accepted and well loved. If he can deliver the rehearsed material for any audience and generate the same response every time, then he’s sensational.
Know this: sensational comedians are fabled to be as rare as universal punch lines.
Satire or not, the article “The War At Home” by Chip Tsao for HK Magazine must have hit a nerve for me to react the way I did. It made me want to clench my fist and fight until I drew blood. I am not the violent kind, a lot of people can attest to that, and I can truthfully say that it would take a lot for something to get to me. I have a resolve, you see, of fighting for either of only two things: defend my life or defend my pride.
I remember training for systems in HK for a couple of days for work. With us that time were our counterparts from Japan, Thailand, Korea, and HK. With me were two other Filipinos. During lunch, one day, the instructor suddenly brought up the fact that she hired a Filipina as her cleaning lady. She also said the Filipina just moved in with her the other week. Knowing better than to react violently, I let the subject pass because at least she made it apparent that she had high regard for her helper on the way she performs her services, so far. Even so, I found the mention so inappropriate in many different levels. In that moment, my only hope was to get to interact with people who are better bred in the future, both in the work place and out. I think I must have also wished for the ground to swallow me whole at one point, albeit fleetingly.
This personal experience and what the article said made me think. Is naiveté a cultural phenomenon for their race? I hoped to God I’m mistaken because that would be tragic for our fellow who will have to bear, day in and out, being subject to such atrocious breeding. Call me pathetic but that “The War At Home” piece that was purportedly written to make other people laugh, since it is after all a (pffft!) satire, did not strike me as funny. It may have had truths that nobody dared speak before but know, however, that no one dared do it for a reason.
That brand of humor was horribly tasteless and, worse, done at my people’s expense.
I am not one to condone the bashing the author got, all too timely this season of Lent IMHO, but releasing a material with racial slurs, subject to the scrutiny of a global audience, is bound to get bloody. He could have foreseen that if only he thought of taking time to “feel” his audience when he donned a comedian’s helm.
*sigh*
Then again, sensational comedians are fabled to be as rare as universal punch lines.
Twitter Updates
1 April 2009 at 1:37 am
Uh, ano yung symbolism nung water fountain?
1 April 2009 at 1:41 am
Nina,
Zen: Peace, tranquility. Ironic because of its chinese roots.
1 April 2009 at 2:23 am
right on brotha!
1 April 2009 at 3:03 am
I would’ve whole-heartedly agreed with you if the article had been written as a comedy. As a joke, it would’ve been inappropriate and entirely insulting to our nation.
But I believe that the definition of a satirical piece should be shed light on:
Satire: a literary tone used to ridicule or make fun of human vice or weakness, often with the intent of correcting, or changing, the subject of the satiric attack.
We’re all used to seeing satire on TV (i.e. the Daily Show or The Colbert Report), which is so intertwined with comedy that we often associate the two. But pure satire is exactly what the definition above states. Tsao was ridiculing his countrymen rather than agreeing with them, and as hard as it may be to swallow– this article had nothing to do with any specific brand of humor.
This is a legitimate satire and it was *never* meant to be funny. As most literary satires are, they are meant to shock people into realizing the error of their ways and subsequently change their minds.
1 April 2009 at 10:41 am
I’m one of those who read the article, chuckled a little and shrugged it off. I believe that it was, in fact, a jab at the mainland Chinese government and not at us.
However, I see why a lot of our countrymen are offended by this. Chip Tsao went overboard with the satire. And I think that everybody has the right to vent out their anger at being called “a nation of servants”. But hurling insults at the writer does not do our national image any good. This issue was totally blown out of proportion.
Now, Fritz, you’ve shown how to react to this issue with class. Hats off.
1 April 2009 at 5:24 pm
I agree with you there Lizz.
The Hong Kong Magazine has, of course, a target readership of a Chinese audience. I think Mr. Tsao was really insulting the Chinese regime, if not the Chinese people themselves. If you would notice his contextualization, he told us how China showed little interest on the lost of lives and territory because it was caused by powerful States, i.e. Russia and Japan. But China had showed might, militarily speaking, over a territory because its rivals are weaker States, i.e. Philippines, et al.
So if we would take the spirit of the whole satire, it is a criticism on Chinese arrogance and the bullying of weaker States, taking what is not theirs because of the simple fact that they can. Further the article insult the inability to protect what is theirs because it cannot demand from her powerful neighbors what is indignantly theirs. The article’s end is not essentially a racial slur, but rather an introspection upon this closer inspection.
1 April 2009 at 7:02 pm
Hi Lizz. How are you? :D I wish I had the ability to have analyzed the reading in the same light as you guys. The more I think about it, and after having read the Chinaman’s writeup for quite possibly the eighth time, his bite did not sink as deep unlike before, surprisingly, to the demise of my initial stand, maybe because I’ve grown too familiar with his words.
You were right. While writing the article, my definition of a satire was exactly what you said it was: funny. I even LOLed with the first paragraph.
Granting that his article, being a satire made to shock his fellow nationals and his Government to ultimately make them abandon the error of their ways, has driven its point, its efficacy will have already been diluted with the hate and criticism it generated more than its initial purpose. Yes, the criticism and the hate were borne from misalignment, but the fact remains that the initial reaction it generated was this more than him effectively attacking “something he strongly disapproves, using the weapon of wit.” As I’ve said, I’m not condoning the tongue lashing because I myself would never resort to that.
I recognize where you are coming from and I hear you loud and clear on the true meaning of the literary form “satire.” The article, however, had bits of “truths that nobody dared speak before” mainly because of fear to generate this much reaction.
That said, it may be safe to conclude that one person’s satire is another’s tasteless piece of crap article that deserve no less than a lynch mob comprised of servants backed by their families and friends hailing from a country which may or may not be aiming to claim “sovereignty over the scattered rocks in the South China Sea called the Spratly Islands.”
Thanks for being academic with your stand and lengthy but clear explanation, Lizz! Cheers!
1 April 2009 at 7:41 pm
Hi Joseph, sup? Actually, the article did not just target the Chinese Government. He made it so that the Philippine Government also gets an equal amount of beating alongside theirs with the second paragraph, if we are to be strict about this (pffft!) satire thing. Also, for me to come up with this elegant an analogy, it should be too easy to grasp what was already easily understandable, unless the meaning was only implied. Some things weren’t, though, like most of the stuff you shared. I mean, come on, they’re already pretty obvious.
To satisfy my curiosity, I’ve tried to analyze things further. Let’s say the author had a hidden agenda which is why he used the satire as a literary platform instead of, for example, prose. Fair enough, I guess. But him using the “Filipino household help” as an element for his piece did not quite sit well on the stomach, at least for me. When I weighed things about, had he chosen to attack white collared Pinoy workers in HK, it would not have elicited the same reaction from me because I know, for a fact, that that class have proven themselves in order for them to be where they’re at right now and no amount of baseless juvenile punditry can take that away from them nor disprove their worth. To further debase a societal class that is of our own was unacceptable (employer vs employed). That’s may just be me, though: a nobody who usually cries over anime.
The good thing about this opinion is it’s my own and I have no intention of shoving it down everybody else’s throats and make it theirs. Answering comments, though, had made me further put logic into my reaction, which is a good thing. It’s all clearer now, thanks partly to you.
Thanks for dropping by, Joseph!
1 April 2009 at 7:47 pm
1 April 2009 at 10:52 pm
Hey Fritz. I’m doing well, thanks for asking. :) I hear you loud and clear on all points, and I’m impressed that you read it 8 times! Even viewing it from an entirely academic standpoint, 3 times was my limit. (I’m not made entirely out of stone, apparently.)
In any case, it is entirely understandable why people would react the way they did, though I really wish they hadn’t. As with your original entry, I find that leaning towards intellectual outrage rather than hurling random racial slurs is infinitely preferable.
In any case, I appreciate your logical and lengthy response. It was probably one of the better things to come of this issue, lol!
Cheers!
1 April 2009 at 11:56 pm
2 April 2009 at 1:28 am
You sir, deserve all the props for this very well-written piece. If people took offense to what Mr. Tsao had to say, this was the best way to respond, I believe. :)
5 April 2009 at 10:48 am
Racism should never be tolerated, amen.