Turning a nation into the punchline
On July 10, China Daily’s Facebook page published a 58-second artificial intelligence (AI)-generated animation that appeared to mock the Philippines and the 2016 South China Sea arbitral ruling. The video showed a monkey dressed in a barong Tagalog and salakot singing karaoke onstage. After messing up the lyrics, the monkey was thrown into the water and blasted with a coast guard water cannon. Several Philippine officials have since condemned the post. The Department of Foreign Affairs described it as offensive content that spreads misinformation and deepens distrust between the two countries. It urged China “to uphold dignity, respect, and truth in public discourse.”
There were, however, some who believed the outrage was unnecessary. In an earlier statement, Sen. Robinhood Padilla appeared to downplay the incident, arguing that since Filipinos, Chinese, and Japanese had all historically been portrayed as “monkeys” by white colonizers and supremacists, taking offense meant abandoning our shared Asian and Austronesian heritage. While his office has since clarified his position, his remarks do reflect a familiar defense whenever offensive humor is criticized. If it was “just a joke,” must we take it so seriously?
In psychology, disparagement humor refers to attempts to elicit laughter by belittling and denigrating a group of people. Racist jokes, sexist jokes, and other forms of prejudice disguised as comedy all fall under this category. Presenting hateful expressions as “funny” can be more insidious than communicating them outright because humor lowers our guard. People may laugh at a disparaging joke not because they deeply believe it or understand its loaded messaging, but because the comedic framing reduces the sense that something offensive has been said. And the more exposed we are to the idea, the more we become desensitized to how harmful it is.
The power of these jokes also lies in the plausible deniability they provide. When challenged, the speaker can simply respond, “It was only a joke,” or accuse critics of being overly sensitive. This shifts attention away from the content and onto the person who objected, forcing the target or the critics to defend their reaction.
Racist humor has long been politically useful because shared laughter creates shared identity. The “us versus them” narrative can strengthen group bonds, making it easier to push extreme and hateful messages until these ideas are normalized and become more socially acceptable.
So what makes a joke racist? Philosopher Luvell Anderson in his oft-cited work, “The Ethics of Racial Humor,” suggests that ethnic jokes are not just “racist” or “not racist.” Instead, he sorts racial humor into three specific types: merely racial, racially insensitive, and racist.
A joke is merely racial when the speaker refers to race without reinforcing a negative stereotype. A racially insensitive joke is one that relies carelessly on racial stereotypes or disregards the historical and social context that gives those stereotypes their harmful meaning. Finally, a racist joke is when the speaker reinforces prejudiced beliefs or demeans a racial group and shows hostility or indifference toward the well-being of the people being targeted.
Viewed through this framework, the China Daily animation falls squarely into the last category. It revives a historical slur against us, drawing from a long tradition of colonial propaganda in which Filipinos and other nonwhite peoples were portrayed as monkeys to legitimize discrimination and domination.
In a previous column, “War through memes,” I spoke about a new era of warfare where online memes and AI-generated videos are becoming powerful tools to influence and control public opinion. Racist content as a political tool follows a similar playbook. Generative tools now allow anyone to create polished, engaging videos within minutes. Memes, cartoons, and short videos are easy to share and often reach audiences who might usually ignore a more serious and comprehensive political discussion. And with social media algorithms relying on emotional engagement, the resulting outrage, shock, and laughter generate the clicks and shares that give hateful content a wider audience.
Depicting Filipinos as animals was an intentional choice that should not be taken lightly. Animal comparisons have long been used to dehumanize groups of people: Africans during slavery, Jews in Nazi propaganda, and indigenous peoples under colonialism. By portraying a group as less than fully human, it becomes easier to justify ridicule, discrimination, and eventually, violence.
We are living in an AI-enabled landscape where racist material could easily masquerade as humorous, anodyne content. Our government was right to recognize and condemn a discriminatory and harmful message hiding behind a palatable format. Because as history has repeatedly shown, slowly robbing people of their dignity and humanity often begins by turning them into the punchline.
—————-
eleanor@shetalksasia.com
******
Get real-time news updates: inqnews.net/inqviber
