How Marginalized Entertainers Navigate the Comedy World

In an age of political correctness, the definition of “controversial” keeps expanding as the number of widely acceptable jokes decreases. Topics that were taboo in the 1960s, such as race and sexuality, are now common fodder for comedic scripts, whereas slurs from that same era are now considered unthinkable. Comedians have always had difficulty navigating these issues. Some shy away from them. Others embrace them for their comedic potential. Amongst comedians who embrace these controversial topics, Hasan Minhaj and Richard Pryor spring to mind as formidable examples. While Minhaj relies on millennial humor and knowledge of politics, Pryor focused on shock value and comedic timing. Although they are generations apart, both shared similar reasons for embracing boldness and controversy in their performances. 

Beginning with his work as a correspondent on “The Daily Show with Trevor Noah,” Hasan Minhaj’s comedy has always had a political edge. As an Indian-American Muslim, Minhaj brings a unique perspective to a field oversaturated with white Christian comedians, and his jokes consistently reiterate this distinct perspective. From joking about his experience being raised by immigrant parents to airing his opinions on the current political climate in America, he often walks the thin line between being offensive and comedic. Though his jokes would have been considered controversial coming from someone with a different heritage, his Muslim-American identity gives him the right to comment on issues concerning his race and religion.

Rather than shy away from his culture, Minhaj takes every opportunity to emphasize it. Hosting the 2017 White House Correspondents’ Association dinner gave him an opportunity to do just that. While calling out Fox News, a notoriously conservative media network with representatives at the dinner, he said, “as a Muslim, I like to watch Fox News for the same reason I like to play ‘Call of Duty.’ Sometimes, I like to turn my brain off and watch strangers insult my family and my heritage.” As someone who has been personally offended and attacked by Fox News, Minhaj’s joke strikes a different tone than one ambiguously mocking the network for their biased reporting. He emphasizes his religion and notes the absurdity of the situation by using “turn off my brain” as a hyperbole and comparing their reporting to a video game. At the same time, he acknowledges the very real effects—including verbal and physical abuse, racist attacks, and stereotyping— that their reporting has on members of his community. In the clip, his tone rapidly shifts to become more serious.

Rather than skirting around them, Minhaj confronts the reality of the portrayal of Muslims in the media for a few reasons. Firstly, his background and culture greatly influence his comedy. Jokes about having immigrant parents, being raised with Indian cultural values in a white suburban town, and being part of the “model minority” form the foundations of his comedic style. Acknowledging his roots first paved his path towards being a comedian, so challenging media stereotypes and commenting on controversial issues is a homage to his upbringing and lineage. Secondly, he refuses to conform through his jokes by learning to occupy the position of the “outsider.” By exposing racist jokes as harmful rather than witty, he encourages the audience to laugh with him at the jokes themselves rather their victims. He embraces his differences rather than waiting for others to mock them. This is best seen in his Netflix special, “Homecoming King,” in which he details how his experiences with racism and familial expectations shaped the content of his jokes and his embracement of his identity. His ironic Hindi catchphrase of sorts, “Log Kya Kahenge,” translates to “what will people think.” It is the slogan he was raised with and demonstrates the repression his identity faced as a “foreigner” who needed to “preserve his family’s reputation” in a new country. When analyzing this role as a “foreigner,” it is important to consider the relationship between repression and jokes—the greater the repression, the more jokes protesting that repression.

Through his jokes, Minhaj demonstrates that he does not care what people think and protests his status as an outsider while also asserting his individual perspective. Finally, Minhaj is compelled to make these jokes to provide himself and the audience with a controlled channel for vicariously expressing their gripes over controversial issues. Mocking these issues collectively allows him and the audience to stand in solidarity against controversial issues. This solidarity is also a reason why the audience does not react negatively. His humor mainly caters to people who find his jokes relatable and honest, such as children of immigrants, people of color and liberals. His reputation as a comedian and the speakability of his jokes also ensure that conservative audiences do not react negatively. His comedic commentary on something “unspeakable,” in this case calling out Fox News’ racism, makes it speakable because it is meant to be understood as a joke. Since the main purpose behind the Correspondents’ dinner is to mock media sources, so he is merely fulfilling his role as the host. 

Hasan Minhaj’s bold, race-based comedy may have elicited gasps and uncomfortable laughter at the Correspondents’ dinner, but Richard Pryor was one of the first to pave the path to success for minority comedians. Relying on the shock value of his jokes in the late 1960s and 1970s, Pryor achieved widespread fame playing to diverse audiences. He was the first black comedian to repeatedly use the n-word during his performances and also the first to tell the white people in the audience what he thought of them. Whereas these elements are commonly found in comedians’ productions nowadays, the height of his career occurred against the backdrop of the Civil Rights movement. Race relations were strained across the country, yet Pryor managed to find common ground with his audience through humor.

Similar to Minhaj, being a black man gave him the right to comment on controversial topics of the era that concerned race relations. He also drew from his own experiences—using the platform he was given, he brought attention to issues such as drug abuse, poverty and racism. In Pryor’s case, he was motivated to comment on controversial issues for a few reasons. Firstly, they were part of his technique as a comedian. Relying on shock value meant trying new methods which included calling out white people in the audience, talking about race as part of his routine, and exposing the audience to uncommon themes. An example of this was during an episode of The Richard Pryor Show. On it, he featured a woman describing her first lesbian experience. Queer representation was lacking at the time, so depicting a woman loving another woman and implying a sexual relationship was taboo. By featuring this on his show, Pryor introduced the audience to a form of comedy distinct from the racist humor and humorous sitcoms that were popular at the time. In this case, sexuality was an uncommon theme for comedians to discuss, and Pryor giving it a platform demonstrates his willingness to go the extra mile to provide the most diverse comedy possible.

Secondly, Pryor believed in being himself and in his freedom of speech. Expressing this freedom through  controversial topics often came when he joked about white people. An example of this was when, live in concert, Pryor imitated what happens when you cut a white guy in line. His impression imitates the mannerisms, including the walk and talk, of said white man, making a mockery of him. He flips the script, making fun of white people rather than the norm of jokes targeting Black people. He says what he wants, and his deliverance lets him get away with it without offending the audience.

Rather than taking offense from the imitation, the white people in the audience roared with laughter due to his delivery and comedic timing. The way he punctuated his imitation with side comments in his own voice reminded the audience that the performance was not meant to be taken seriously. Furthermore, when laughing at his performance, the audience laughed with him, not at him. In this way, potential racists in the audience were able to experience the cognitive dissonance of enjoying a Black man’s comedy. By listening to and laughing along with his performance, they showed they respected his opinion and he was more than what stereotypes made Black people out to be. Playing on, as well as with, stereotypes allowed Pryor to undermine their potency and venom. Like Minhaj, adding humor to racist stereotypes forced the audience to laugh along.

Whereas some comedians stay well within the bounds of political correctness by making jokes relevant to their identities, others use comedy as a “get out of jail free” pass. Comedians like Louis C.K. and Roseanne Barr thought their comedic reputations would protect them from popular backlash after controversial jokes—they did not. Louis C.K. quickly fell from popularity and Barr’s show—after a two decade run—was cancelled after sexual misconduct accusations and racist tweets, respectively. With more diversity emerging on the comedy scene, audiences are beginning to tire of the same old jokes targeting minorities and victims. Whereas all comedians, regardless of race, religion, or sexuality may have once been allowed to make any joke they wanted, no matter how offensive, times are changing, and the content of comedy is forced to change with them.

Some people may choose to stick to their offensive humor and face the consequences for it; others, however, are rapidly adapting to the changing landscape. Late Night with Seth Meyers has a segment called “Jokes Seth Can’t Tell,” where he acknowledges that he, as a straight, white male, is unable to tell jokes that concern other races and sexualities. Instead, he brings out two of his writers, Jenny Hagel, a lesbian woman, and Amber Ruffin, a Black woman, to appropriately tell the jokes instead. By sharing the comedic value of the jokes through the appropriate voices, Meyers acknowledges that his deliverance would reinforce systemic oppression against minorities. In doing so, he paves the path for the future of discussing controversial issues and jokes by opening the conversation to underrepresented comedians.

by SHWETA KONDAPI