Let's talk about one particular group of buskers and how they actually use and manipulate racial stereotypes and tensions to their advantage.
And while we're doing that, let's keep this in mind:
The only way that their performance succeeds is because racial tensions actually exist.
So introducing: The Kings of Michigan Avenue.
Also known as the KOMA Krew.
Through their performances, they directly address and challenge stereotypes of young black men as gang members and drug dealers. In their hat line (the part of their show when they ask the audience for money), they bring these prejudices up to the fore and challenge them head on. Here's a snippet from their show, in a call and response format, where one performer speaks a line of dialogue, and the rest of the acrobats respond as a group:
The only way that their performance succeeds is because racial tensions actually exist.
So introducing: The Kings of Michigan Avenue.
Also known as the KOMA Krew.
 |
| The Kings of Michigan Avenue, building an audience. |
Call: “We’re not out here gang banging.”
Response: “No!”
Call: “We don’t sell drugs!”
Response: “No!”
Call: “We’re promoting real HIP HOP!”
Response: “Healthy Independent People Helping Other People!”
Call: “Give us a hand, y’all!”
[…]
Call: “We are street entertainers, but we do not live on the street!”
[…]
Call: “… your money helps us keep out of two places.”
Response: “Number one!”
Call: “The poor house!”
Response: “We wouldn’t want to be there!”
Call: “And number two!”
Response: “It keeps us out of your house and your house and your house.” [Acrobats make a gesture like a gun with their hands and use it to point at members of the audience]
Call: “Choice is yours!”
Response: “Give a donation today, save a TV tomorrow.”
This hat line begins by directly addressing stereotypes of young black men as “gang bangers,” drug dealers, and homeless. They then deny these stereotypes for themselves and assert their identities through the use of “hip hop” as an acronym. Immediately after this declaration, however, they ask for applause; applause from the audiences here is acknowledgement that the street performers in question could easily have become the very stereotypes that they are denying.
Applause in this instance is congratulatory; by becoming “street entertainers,” the acrobats have somehow escaped the trappings of their socioeconomic situations and discovered a means through which they could legally assert their economic and social independence as “healthy independent people.” Hand-in-hand with the acknowledgement that such stereotypes exist and the congratulations that these performers have escaped such precarious lifestyles is, significantly, reinforcement that they could easily become those stereotypes: “Choice is yours! Give a donation today, save a TV tomorrow.” In these words is the underlying message, ‘We aren't those guys, but we could be.’
Through their hat line, the KOMA Krew thus draws on their audiences’ knowledge of the wider world; the wider world, as brought into being through their performances, is one in which certain American cities, due to the shifting political economy, are known for the pains of de-industrialization. Busking is thus performed as a viable legal and licit option when alternatives for financial independence are few and far in between.
In this racially and socioeconomically-charged context, these performers play off the guilt of privileged, mostly white tourists (by reference of “the poor house”) and, even, play off inner city tensions by what seems to be a threat-disguised-as-comedy (“it keeps us out of your house and your house and your house”). While the resulting laughter – sometimes exuberant, sometimes nervous, and always affectively-tinged with a degree of shock – does a good job of concealing or assuaging the tensions, the tensions manifest most obviously when the acrobats are in the process of collecting money.
Immediately after collecting money from the audience, they turn their attention to the line of volunteers who have been standing in front of everyone, waiting for one of the acrobats to jump over all of them:
Applause in this instance is congratulatory; by becoming “street entertainers,” the acrobats have somehow escaped the trappings of their socioeconomic situations and discovered a means through which they could legally assert their economic and social independence as “healthy independent people.” Hand-in-hand with the acknowledgement that such stereotypes exist and the congratulations that these performers have escaped such precarious lifestyles is, significantly, reinforcement that they could easily become those stereotypes: “Choice is yours! Give a donation today, save a TV tomorrow.” In these words is the underlying message, ‘We aren't those guys, but we could be.’
Through their hat line, the KOMA Krew thus draws on their audiences’ knowledge of the wider world; the wider world, as brought into being through their performances, is one in which certain American cities, due to the shifting political economy, are known for the pains of de-industrialization. Busking is thus performed as a viable legal and licit option when alternatives for financial independence are few and far in between.
In this racially and socioeconomically-charged context, these performers play off the guilt of privileged, mostly white tourists (by reference of “the poor house”) and, even, play off inner city tensions by what seems to be a threat-disguised-as-comedy (“it keeps us out of your house and your house and your house”). While the resulting laughter – sometimes exuberant, sometimes nervous, and always affectively-tinged with a degree of shock – does a good job of concealing or assuaging the tensions, the tensions manifest most obviously when the acrobats are in the process of collecting money.
 |
| Audience members watching the show from afar. |
Call: “Yo, fellas!”
Response: “What’s up?”
Call: “I think we’re forgetting somebody.”
Response: “Who?”
Call: “White guys!”
While the line is composed of more than “white guys,” the acrobats specifically seek out, in their words, “a tall white guy!” as a volunteer. When the performers address these volunteers at last and ask them for money, the volunteers’ decision to pay or not pay will be seen by everyone in the audience. The tactics used are thus palpably aggressive.
Call: “Hurry, give us something good-“
Response: “And you will live-“
Response: “We promise. Give us something good, give us something good!” [They sing these words, while clapping]
Spectator: “I got nothing.”
Call: “You ain’t got nothing? Come to the front!”
Response: “VIP!”
Call: “Something goes wrong,”
Response: “You die first!”
Once again, the tension built up by any aggression (the situation itself as well as the words, “Give us something, and you will live”) is relieved through the use of humor and the subsequent audience laughter; the volunteer who does not pay gets moved to the front of the line (where, supposedly, he would be the most likely to get hurt if the acrobat were unable to make the jump).
By performing into being an economic and racialized context and using this context as a means to elicit donations, partially through guilt and partially through threats, these acrobats bring into play knowledge and experiences from the wider world outside of the show itself. These performers thus use, manipulate, and control racial and class tensions (in the same way that they manipulate space and flows) in order to create a certain affective experience – one in which the guilt of the socioeconomically advantaged is combined with subtle threats, all of which are alleviated through humor and the steady rhythm of their call-and-response dialogue.
In their racial comedy, there is something to laugh at and, at the same time, a question over the ethics of laughing at this kind of humor. In this process, the discomfort that these buskers create through their comedic performance can potentially impact their spectators’ perspectives of street performers and of young black men and, even, make a socioeconomic critique of life in American cities. They perform into being an acknowledgement of the socioeconomic context in which they work, a challenge against its restraints, and, ultimately, a declaration of their freedom in defiance of it.
For a little bit more about these guys, check out this Chicago Tribune article on them from 2012.
In their racial comedy, there is something to laugh at and, at the same time, a question over the ethics of laughing at this kind of humor. In this process, the discomfort that these buskers create through their comedic performance can potentially impact their spectators’ perspectives of street performers and of young black men and, even, make a socioeconomic critique of life in American cities. They perform into being an acknowledgement of the socioeconomic context in which they work, a challenge against its restraints, and, ultimately, a declaration of their freedom in defiance of it.
For a little bit more about these guys, check out this Chicago Tribune article on them from 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment