Joke for the day...

[Bill V]

Leroy



A woman walks into the downtown welfare office, trailed by 15 kids.



"Wow," the social worker exclaims, "are they all yours?"



"Yes, they are all mine," the flustered mother sighs, having heard that question a thousand times before. She turns to the kids and says, "Sit down, Leroy!" All the children rush to find seats.



"Well," says the social worker, "then you must be here to sign up. I'll need all your children's names."



''Well, to keep it simple, the boys are all named Leroy and the girls are all named Leighroy."



In disbelief, the case worker says, "Are you serious? They're ALL named Leroy?"



Their mother replied, "Well, yes-it makes it easier. When it's time to get them out of bed and ready for school, I yell, 'Leroy!' An' when it's time for dinner, I just yell 'Leroy!' An they all come running. And if I need to stop the kid who's running into the street, I just yell 'Leroy!' and all of them stop. It's the smartest idea I ever had, naming them all Leroy."



The social worker thinks this over for a bit, then wrinkles her forehead and says tentatively, "But what if you just want ONE kid to come, and not the whole bunch?"



"Then I call them by their last names."

 

[Richard McAlister]

:bwahaha:

 

[EddieS'04]

:banana:

 

[LaRue Medlin]

:haveabeer:

 

[Kevin Palmer]

Nice,,,,,

 

[Steve McKellop]

 

[Richard L]

Steve M

How is that racist?? There was no mention of the woman's race?



Did you just assume she was black??? Now that would be racist.



...Rich

 

[Jerry Gerner 2]

:bwahaha::haveabeer::supercool::rofl:

 

[TrainTrac]

:bwahaha:

Steve M

How is that racist?? There was no mention of the woman's race?



Did you just assume she was black??? Now that would be racist.

Rich,



I think Steve's response was meant to be purely satirical to illustrate how cries of "racism" really don't mean much anymore because it's used so often nowadays, especially in situations where it has no merit or basis in fact whatsoever.

 

[Bill V]

Richard L, TrainTrac's right.



Although, to be fair--Just how many blondes do you know who are named 'Leroy'???



:bwahaha:

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Richard L said:

Did you just assume she was black??? Now that would be racist.

You have your tongue firmly planted in your cheek when you say that, right Rich?



Okay, let's look at the evidence:



1. A mom at the welfare office.



2. 15 kids



3. All kids by a different father



4. Kids named "Leroy".



5. Girls named rather strangely.



The 5th is a stretch, granted. At a certain point the whole walks, talks, acts like a duck phrase comes up.



I'd say this is at the very least a politically correct version of a racist joke, with the words: "A black woman walks into..." altered only slightly in the hopes not to offend.



Do I find it offensive, in either form? Nope.



This joke probably only offends those that name their kids (or even one kid) Leroy, and are on welfare, and have a bunch of kids by different fathers. Have you met any family that fits that bill? Not me personally. But if I heard that one moved in next door, and I had to place my bets on their race...well, I know which way I would bet.



Is that racist? To me...no, no more than saying one is more likely to be shot by a young black man than an old white woman. Odds are odds.



The person hearing this joke is safe to assume based on what statistics he or she THINKS she knows that the woman in the joke is black.



If that assumption offends, or is incorrect, then people need to recognize that it would stop be made if fewer blacks were on welfare, blacks had fewer children by multiple fathers, and they stopped naming their boys Leroy. :banana:



TJR

 

[Bill V]

Okay, let's look at the evidence:



1. A mom at the welfare office.



2. 15 kids



3. All kids by a different father



4. Kids named "Leroy".



5. Girls named rather strangely.

Two points I'd like to make--



First, there is a sixth piece of evidence--and that is that the version of the joke I posted here has already been edited. I received the joke twice last week, from two different friends, and the email header track on the second one indicates that along its way, it went from the first friend to another person to another person to another person to the second friend, before hitting me a second time. And somewhere between the two, it got edited, to take out some of the "Ebonics" (for lack of a better term) of the mother. Here's the original version:

A woman walks into the downtown welfare office, trailed by 15 kids.



"Wow," the social worker exclaims, "are they all yours?"



"Yep, they are all mine," the flustered momma sighs, having heard that question a thousand times before.



She says, "Sit down, Leroy!" All the children rush to find seats.



"Well," says the social worker, "then you must be here to sign up. I'll need all your children's names."



''Well, to keep it simple, the boys are all named Leroy and the girls are all named Leighroy."



In disbelief, the case worker says, "Are you serious? They're ALL named Leroy?"



Their momma replied, "Well, yes-it makes it easier. When it's time to gets them out of bed and ready for school, I yell, 'Leroy!' An' when it's time for dinner, I just yell 'Leroy!' An they all comes a runnin. An' if I need to stop the kid who's running into the street, I just yell 'Leroy' and all of them stop. It's the smartest idea I ever had, namin' thems all Leroy."



The social worker thinks this over for a bit, then wrinkles her forehead and says tentatively, "But what if you just want ONE kid to come, and not the whole bunch?"



"Then I calls thems by their last names."

Now, does changing it to have the mother speak closer-to-proper English harm the joke at all? Not at all. In fact, it makes it funnier, as it takes away much of the distraction of possible racism, allowing the reader to concentrate more on the humor.



Second--Did anyone catch this week's episode of "The Good Wife"? The questions here regarding assumption of race reminds me a bit of what happened on the show--even though the subject of racial assumptions never directly came up in the episode. On the show, Peter Florrick, husband of the main character, is running for political office in a three-way race. One other candidate just last week was determined to have previously hired an undocumented Mexican worker as a nanny for several years, thus damaging her chances in the election. This week, Florrick's staff had checked into the other candidate's nanny--and determined that his Swedish-born nanny was on the up-and-up. However, Florrick's son had gone to a camp a couple years earlier with the other candidate's son, and saw their nanny there--and remembered her being black. The kid was even able to find photos from the camp. And when the son mentioned this to his dad's election staff, EVERYONE on the show concluded that this black woman couldn't be the Swedish nanny. (Further investigation by the staff determined that it was a temp term nanny for a few weeks, illegally from Jamaica. When that fact was brought forward, it was enough to cause that candidate to completely drop out of the race.)



What I found amazing was that no one on the show--the kids, the parents, the election staffs of any candidate, NO ONE--ever even mentioned the possibility that a black woman could be a citizen of Sweden. For the show's writers, it was completely outside the realm of any possibility. It was racial assumption--just like this example, but with far fewer and weaker supporting arguments. And for me, this case on the show was one where it didn't quack like a duck--yet the show's writers still concluded it was a duck, and insisted we go along with it.



Not saying right or wrong in either case--just an interesting comparison...

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Okay, so if the original joke had the lady speaking ebonics, then I think its pretty much a certainty that this started its life as a racist joke.



TJR

 

[Bill V]

Okay, so if the original joke had the lady speaking ebonics, then I think its pretty much a certainty that this started its life as a racist joke.

Agreed--but it's also one of those cases where removing some of the racism (or even going further in the editing, to remove even more of it--for example, changing the names of all 15 kids to "Pat" or "Chris" or "Chase") doesn't take away from the humor. The humor is primarily not race-based. Meaning it's more of a joke with racism than a racist joke, if you know what I mean.



Kind of like Eenie Meanie Miney Moe. Most people under about age 50 are shocked to learn that that rhyme started with a significant racist bent, with the second line typically having been, "catch a n!&&@r by his toe". The line has so universally been replaced (most frequently with "catch a tiger..."), with so much of the population having heard ONLY that version for their entire lives, that the racism angle lives on only with historians (and with people looking for an axe to grind)...

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Bill, I agree. Funny is funny, and the joke is still funny without the racism.



Some racist jokes aren't though (funny without the racism, or should I say easily seperated and still funny after that seperation).



I have examples.



One has to do with a black man and a vasectomy...and its funny, but it really can't be rewritten to be made not racist.



TJR

 

[Bill V]

I don't know the joke, but I know exactly what you mean. I know another about a black man wearing a white tube top as a Halloween costume that falls in that category.

 

[Matt DeFina]

what's brown, stinky and revolting...



Libya....