MovieChat Forums > The Amos 'n Andy Show (1951) Discussion > Politically Incorrect, but why ?

Politically Incorrect, but why ?

posted 10 years ago by awrobel
7 replies | jump to latest

I always loved this show as a kid, the show along with Phil Silvers' " Bilko" and Gleason's " Honeymooners " comprised some of the best TV comedy ever. Not being African-American I'm not in a position to assess the racial aspects that might be offensive adequately. However, the case for insensitivity can be made in almost any situation in respect to any ethnic group. We all find moments that might seem discomforting at times and yet stereotypes persist despite our best intentions. Jack Benny's frugality can be construed as a Jewish trait associated with extreme financial cautiousness, yet I'm Jewish and find it both endearing and funny. Let's face it, bigots will always find fault in those they despise and any trait or mannerism will be exploited in a negative light. After all it is only a fool who believes that these traits are universal to a given ethnicity and they should never be given priority. If that were the case surely "The Sopranos" should have been taken off the air as a negative depiction of Italians and yet it was the most popular show on television. Granted no group likes to be cast as gangsters, yet it would be naive to assume Italians are the sole exponents of criminal enterprises given the existence of the Yakuza, Russian Mafia and assorted other criminal groups associated with other ethnic groups. Amos & Andy can hardly be placed in the same category of negativity in that the show displays African-Americans in all sorts of professional occupations i.e. lawyers, doctors, ministers etc. I'm sure that in recent years shows like "Martin" could be cited as far more racially bias in its storylines. True, Amos & Andy was originally done on radio by two white guys and I can certainly see why there was cause for consternation there, yet the TV show seemed to correct that very indiscretion with the use of black actors. Yes, Andy is always duped by the Kingfish, but on closer examination the plot generally turns the tables on the Kingfish and Andy is the victor, much in the manner that Laurel & Hardy, Abbott & Costello etc. comedy duos have played off one another through the years. But ultimately, I think the audience has to ask themselves are we laughing at these people or with them. Unequivocally, in my case I'm laughing with these actors and marvel at their craft. My affection for these characters as a child has still not diminished as I view the DVD today. Laughter is an involuntary reaction and comes from a place within us that I feel is most closely related to our feelings of love and affection.

[–] SealordJohn 10 years ago

I agree with your comments. I am old enough to remember watching Amos 'n Andy on television back in the 50's. And when the networks stopped broadcasting them because of the complaints, it was not until I was on a business trip to New York City in the 1980's when I had a chance to visit a broadcast museum there where I was able to view episodes of Amos 'n Andy. And now, thanks to the internet and sites like YouTube, I'm able to view these same episodes from the comfort of my own home.
I consider myself to be sufficiently intelligent to realize that shows like this present the extreme exceptions of any particular classification of people.

[–] bradford-1 10 years ago

One of the main points against "A'n'A" when it was first broadcast was that it was virtually the only depiction of blacks on TV at the time. Outside of the usual servile roles, blacks were essentially invisible on 1950s-early 60s TV (variety programs and sports being the exceptions). There were no black cowboys, doctors, detectives, nurses, soldiers, pilots, stewardesses, fashion models. judges, insurance executives, journalists, photographers, ok you get the picture. Sometimes a series would do a special "Negro episode," but those were few and far between. Also, blacks were absent from most commercials. It took a while for ad agencies to realize blacks bought soda, sliced bread, deodorant, chewing gum, toys, detergent, wine, motor vehicles, et al.
May I bone your kipper, Mademoiselle?

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] aciolino 9 years ago

The militant NAACP of the 50's arbitrarily decided that anything remotely connected to the pre-"enlightenment," of their own sophistication was to be mocked, censored or forgotten. They refused to understand the value of talented, FUNNY, actors, and the common portrayal of black people as dignified, professional and successful people. No, all they saw was their own bias.

Can you imagine them standing in judgement of the great Tim Moore? Criminal.

[–] PaladinNJ (21781) 2 years ago

How is that any different from what's happening today?

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] strntz (12773) a year ago

My dad bought some VHS tapes of Amos & Andy because he loved that show when he was younger. I had seen a couple of them and thought they were pretty funny (although dated in the same way as Lucy was when I was a teen in the '70s), but I didn't watch them knowing about the controversy otherwise I would have watched with that in mind.

What I do remember was that some characters were certainly buffoonish but there were also black characters that were intelligent and dignified, like a police officer and judge as I recall, but did not "white" comedies also feature a mix of dignity and buffoonery?

I'd have to watch them again, but I don't think it was any more "offensive" than Sanford & Son.