Finger Lickin' Good?

Wherein a possible racist slur opens up discussion regarding postmodernist theory and 'the global village'.

Dear Jouissance fiends, and free-play addicts!

So, it's been three weeks without Internet. I've moved house deep into the bushland of Van Diemen's Land to a place with neither garbage disposal, mail, or broadband Internet except via wireless connection. It's all a little too much 'The Hills Have Eyes' for my liking during my more sceptical moments.

But, as you can see, I have Internet on. And what shall I see when I first log on, but Australia, my very own antipodean paradise, once again falling into cyberland's headlines for another racist slur debate.

Now, I'm willing to go along with a theme for a while here. But I really don't want to turn this blog into another 'Defense of Australia's Inter-Racial Record' diatribe. Especially when the circumstances surrounding the whole affair are so ...juicy.

It's almost disappointing really when one sees the actual clip. So here it is:

Now, this really stunned me. Because, for a while, in all honesty I simply couldn't understand the reason as to why the advertisement really was racist. And then it hit me. This is all about what the post-modernists would call a discourse. Of course!

How does fried chicken possibly equate with post-modernist theory you may ask. Well it has to do with the whole idea, that a text is no longer a text by itself. A text must be read by a reader who then melds that text and filters it through the discourse that he/she identifies with. For instance, Derrida, I believe, talks about how its fine for us to watch two grown men attack one another when viewed through the discourse of a 'sport' such as boxing. But when seen outside of that context viewed by people who do not share this discourse where two men stripped down to their underwear attacking one another in a canvas square is socially acceptable because its a sport, when viewed by such people incapable of sharing in this narrative of meaning, suddenly the entire scene of ducking weaving and punching takes on a much more nightmarish context.

And we all have a context. We all have certain tropes that we consider to be normal. "Of course," we say, "but doesn't everybody do that?" Well no. The world is a big place. After all, it is still being argued as to whether there are cultures in the world who would find Shakespeare not only un-entertaining, but totally offensive. (And having watched The Taming of the Shrew recently with a modern third millennium discourse I have to agree!)

So this is what two cultures in the world, each with their different discourses would see when viewing the said advertisement.

The Australian:

A lone Australian supporter, watches a cricket game as the sole away team supporter amidst a sea of West Indies supporters who are being loud and distracting, but no more than the Australian supporting crowds are at home as well. In order to quieten the crowds down the supporter buys KFC, (who sponsor the cricket) and everyone shares in the meal and it's all 'too easy.' There are no slurs in the advertisement because it is one in a series of advertisements where crowds of people are quietened down by the same scenario. It's simply taking a theme used by the food company, KFC and making it more relevant to the cricket context in which it wedges its advertisements during change overs.

The American:

A lone white man sits civilised and quiet in an audience as raucous African Americans who dance and gyrate around him. In desperation to quieten them down, he turns to something that he knows will quieten down all African-Americans: fried chicken. He hands out fried chicken, which has long been associated with the poor southern African-American, and lo and behold the masses are satiated and quieten down, just like a crowd of children, or, if you like, just like all the racist caricatures would have you believe. And controlling such an unruly crowd of African-Americans is too the lone white man 'too easy'.

So, the question remains, is the advertisement racist. And there is a really simple answer to the whole debate: Yes and No.

American's may find this hard to believe, but no one in Australia who viewed that ad, even for a second would have assumed that they were African-American's, and really, in Australia, there simply isn't a racial stereotype involving poultry goods, deep fried or otherwise.

Read that statement very carefully. That's not someone saying "Oh but its all in good fun", but is instead someone stating that to millions of people in the world, outside of the American discourse, the very tropes that made such an advertisement offensive simply don't exist.

This being said, I can, when viewing the advertisement through the discourse of an American see how the advertisement could be interpreted as offensive. And I can see why KFC as a multi-national company, pulled the ad immediately when the furor arose. No company likes negative press.

But then, that very action immediately rose the hackles of all full blooded Australians as well. For you see, while Australians are without the social discourses regarding relations between white Caucasians and African-Americans (especially regarding chicken) that abound thick and fast in the American psyche, we do however, have heaps of tropes regarding inferiority complexes and love of the underdog which has been argued is a natural result of a nation the size of a continent formed for the express purpose of being a penal colony. So American Imperialism having a say on what can and can not be aired on Australian TV is considered entirely galling to the average Australian. Especially when looking at the Turk clip, where we can see that the commentators are obviously clueless regarding Australian culture.

And while I think, one nation imposing their culture over the top of another is repugnant in most cases, an interesting point is made: Most Australians would like the advertisement to remain, played in the context that is is watched by an all Australian audience where a pocket of understanding regarding the tropes is already possessed. But, in the age of cyberland or terra virtualis is this kind of anti-global thinking simply parochial and unrealistic.

But then, if we begin making concessions regarding the plethora of nationalities Internet viewers may be, should we then avoid showing souls of feet in all media clips just in case its seen in arabic youtube? That will of course, make filming traditional Japanese rituals very difficult!

The above is a hyperbolic example, but as we can see by a single fast-food advertisement, small things can become extremely problematic for international relations. This simple example of an inter-cultural cock-up will undoubtedly cost the Australian tourist trade greatly.

And where does district or national culture fit into the idea of the global village? And if we start taking views in regards to what is offensive and what is not, then whose views should we take in particular? America's? They have been in the past the great exporters of media. But in a new millennium of self created and informally viewed media in the form of the Internet, we can now say that China and India would be the bulk of numbers of Internet audience members. Should we then be turning to our Asian fellows in regards to Internet etiquette?

Either way, this sordid little affair has been fabulous for opening up a can of worms regarding who gets to dictate the international discourse of acceptable behaviour regarding internet relations, and it's a shame that al of the really interesting aspects of the affair have been sidelined to make way for more salacious but superficial race-debates.