His heart is in the right place, but his delivery is all awash in liberal guilt and indignation. I never want to alienate white allies in what is an eternal fight against racism, but sometimes you just need to say, "Hey Mikey. Slow your post-racial roll."

I wonder why he chose to air his grievances with a show that actually has a diverse cast and addresses not just difference but the treatment of difference in Middle America. Is it because he's miffed at the big ol' Pat on the Back the show is getting for having blacks and Asians and Latinos and a kid in a wheelchair when in reality the show is a farce and a stealthy attempt at perpetuating white supremacy on television, OMFG, I'm so mad I could set my hair on FIRE?!?!!

Glee isn't perfect in terms of racial progressiveness. No show is or can be. There can be shows that feature an even distribution of colors, sizes, abilities, and sexualities, but that doesn't mean their content will ever be the epitome of post-racial enlightenment. You can spend all day making sure characters with marginalized identities are not portrayed in a stereotypical fashion, but eventually you will have a smart Asian character. Or a black character who can dance well. Or a sassy Latina character. Just providing counters to stereotypes doesn't necessarily equate progress. Just having all the necessary people checked off on the Disenfranchised Folks Roster isn't automatic progress either. It's all in presenting extremely tricky, polarizing discussions on difference with humor, intelligence, and grace. And I think Glee is making an effort, albeit a tentative one, at doing just that.

And as an astute commenter over on PopMatters pointed out, if Santana had switched to Quinn's more prominent role, it would just be reaffirming stereotypes of Black/Latina teenage moms. And then what? What exactly is it that Landweber wants from Ryan Murphy? One show cannot be the panacea for all of Hollywood's racial ills. I'm not being an apologist for the show because I'm a fan, I'm just trying to be realistic. For a show about a bunch of glee club nerds, I think it's doing a pretty darn good job of being more than that. But it can't be everything to everyone, nor does it or any artistic production have the obligation to be that.

Hey, I have my issues with the show, too, particularly with how pathetic the Ken Tanaka character is. But that's complicated as well. Isn't making an Asian male character into a brutish lughead a contradiction of stereotypes? But he's still undesirable to white women. Why does he have to fall in love with a white woman? And why does that white woman have to be in love with a white man? And why does Tina have to crush on the skinny white guy with glasses? But wait, aren't they in Lima, Ohio, where this is pretty demographically accurate? And, oh my god, where in the hell is my whiskey sour because I'm suddenly feeling incredibly vexed?

Representation can be racially complicated without being racist. When we talk about racism in Hollywood, we usually refer to incidents like the très culturally sensitive casting call notice from the producers of Avatar: the Last Airbender or actors Rex Lee and Steve Park being being racially harassed on the sets of Entourage and Friends respectively, or turning a hate crime into a gag in The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard.

Glee is a show that I like that I think could do better. But I don't bandy around the "R" word too cavalierly. And I'm a minority, damn it. So maybe Michael Landweber should think a little bit more before calling people people a little bit racist. We all should. Because when we use it without thinking, we start to chip away at the seriousness of racism in all its forms.

Mike, I'm going to lend you the word that ethnic studies scholars use 689 times a day:

"Problematic."

Learn it. Use it. Love it.

And to Glee, I say that my life will suck without you until April, when you return.

Originally posted at The Antisocial Ladder