July 17, 2015

Funny or offensive?

More

Millions saw the Seinfeld TV episode where Kramer and Newman are on the subway playing Risk.  For those uninitiated, Risk is a geopolitical board game for up to six players contending for global domination by assembling armies (colored tokens) and taking turns attacking their neighbors by casting dice.  The game ends when one player controls the world.  I played Risk a hundred times back in the 1970s, sharing beers, pizza, strategy, deal-making (and -breaking), laughs and camaraderie.  Our parents presented my brother, Pete, and me with the game because Ukraine plays a prominent role on the map, stretching from the Black Sea to the Arctic, following the borders of Kyivan Rus’ a thousand years ago.

In the Seinfeld episode, Kramer taunts Newman: “The Ukraine. You know what the Ukraine is? It’s a sitting duck; a road apple, Newman. The Ukraine is weak. It’s feeble.”  At that, another passenger steps up and in a heavy accent says, “You not say Ukraine weak. Ukraine is game to you?!  How about I take your little board and smash it!”  And smash it he does.

Was this funny or offensive?  Well, I’m proud of my Ukrainian roots and I laughed.  The episode is actually based on historical truths:  Ukraine has been weak, for a lot of reasons, starting notably with the lack of natural borders which the Risk board reflects:  there are half a dozen avenues to attack, just as there have been for centuries on the actual terrain.  But also, Ukrainians have traditionally risen to their country’s defense, just like the guy on the subway – the incongruity and absurdity of that scene is hilarious.

Ah, but now there’s the recent Verizon commercial, promoting a cable TV package that would allow subscribers to choose the programs they want to watch and therefore pay for.  Aspiring for humor, it features a man jumping from channel to channel, explaining to his wife who’s also watching that they’re paying for hundreds of them, so he has to watch them all.  She comments acidly:  I’ll watch anything but “this;”  “This” just happened to be a Ukrainian group performing the Hopak.

Ha, ha, ha…?   No.  Not funny – offensive.

Ukrainian dance goes back centuries.  It’s been a bedrock organized activity for young Ukrainians (and others) for at least a century, helping to maintain traditional heritage and channeling energies.   The pioneer for diaspora Ukrainian dance was Vasile Avramenko (1895–1981), who traveled from Vladivostok to Manitoba; Buenos Aires to Melbourne and a dozen cities in the U.S, organizing groups.  A 1932 photograph shows hundreds of young people in national apparel on stage in Cleveland.

Like many in the Ukrainian community, I attended dance class, only in my case the exercise ended almost as soon as it started.  I have no rhythm or coordination for the difficult steps.  Others do, including my son and daughter, who performed with Kashtan.  For years, my wife drove them to practice and along with many other adult volunteers organized scores of costumes and prepared snacks for dancers who traveled across Ohio to perform before enthusiastic crowds, most notably the annual Cleveland Nationalities Service Center Concert at Playhouse Square along with 20-plus other groups — Brazilian, Jewish, German, African-American, etc.  And every year the MC, Plain Dealer reporter Bill Miller introducing Kashtan, would say:  “This is our final performance; no other group wants to follow.”  And you could see why.  When the whoops and hollers finally died down, the multi-ethnic audience would leave exhilarated and thrilled.  Hromovytsia in Chicago, Syzokryli in New York and dozens of other dance groups on five continents invariably receive similar reactions.

During the Cold War, Soviet groups like the Moyseiv Dancers, Yatran and Virsky toured the world entertaining sold-out audiences with breath-taking displays of grace and athleticism.  I attended many a performance in the 1970s and 1980s and remember how people would go to the hotel afterward to welcome dancers and, evading surveillance, take them to their homes for a hearty meal washed down with “healthy drinks.”  The KGB “guardian angels” didn’t mind a bit of Cleveland hospitality themselves.

So what about Verizon?  Ukrainians are not the first group to be subjected to gratuitous rudeness.  Over the years, I’ve heard many an ugly joke about gays, African-Americans, Jews, Italians, Poles, Asians, etc.  Directed against anyone, they are hurtful, and they are wrong.  Yet somehow the ad agency that produced the Verizon commercial and the executives who approved it didn’t consider that derisively dismissing Ukrainian culture – “I’ll watch anything but that,” – would be offensive.  They were aware, of course, of the negative ramifications of an ad mocking a Black Gospel Choir, Jewish Hava Nagila, square dancing in Iowa, Irish step dancing, etc. That’s why they didn’t target those groups and properly so.  So is it that Ukrainians have arrived and it’s their turn for derision?  Maybe so, but it hasn’t come without a backlash.

I became aware of the Verizon commercial when friends sent me an Internet link. And like the guy on the subway, many sprang into action:  Alex Tretiak sent a heartfelt letter to Verizon citing his own experience with Syzokryli, linking it to his family history, which includes grandparents forced into slavery in Nazi Germany.  Irene Jarosewich also wrote and then spoke to Verizon executives.  “Don’t you guys do focus groups?” she asked.  One who had just viewed the commercial replied they didn’t need a focus group.  “It’s simply rude to make fun of people.”  I know that many others sent e-mails and letters questioning the commercial.

Ukraine is embattled like no other European country and the front line is not only military in the Donbas and Luhansk, it’s also a global media war over information and perceptions. Verizon, I’m told, pulled the commercial – a small victory for a self-appointed army of advocates in the continuing Revolution of Dignity.  Nice work.

Final observation:  after my initial outrage over the commercial, I noted that the dancers are actually quite good.  I wonder who they are and whether the agency that produced the commercial and Verizon, which approved it, told the dancers they would be used as an object of ridicule. And, if they were not told, or worse – misled, have the un-named ad agency and Verizon apologized and made amends?  Just asking…

Comments are closed.