By now most of you have heard about the racist cartoon published in The New York Post. There’s a lot of good commentary out there on this already, and some calls to action, which I strongly urge all of you to heed.
That said, I haven’t said much about this before today because my feelings pretty much match Ta-Nehisi Coates’: meh. Maybe it helps to provide some “local context” here, because I think a lot of people don’t get what most New Yorkers do: the Post is crap. It’s a step above the National Enquirer in terms of quality, and that’s only because it doesn’t talk about aliens and its inanity has a focus — which is to be the voice of the substantial contingent of conservatives in this famously liberal city. It’s the paper version of Fox News, which isn’t surprising because it’s owned by the same guy. And because of this, I do not believe for one moment that the editor who approved that cartoon didn’t know exactly how it would be received. I think the Post is getting exactly what it wanted here.
Think about it. These are hard times for the Republicans right now. They’re struggling to find a way to reformat themselves in the wake of the backhand slap they received on November 4th. While the party’s leaders flounder in search of a vision/purpose/direction, however, the party’s ideologues don’t have this problem; they’re still repeating the same message they’ve been parroting for the past 20+ years. But with the leadership gone silent, the ideologues’ broken record is suddenly much more audible than it has been for the past couple of (campaign) years. Which is why we’ve heard so much lately from Rush “Crackhead” Limbaugh. He hasn’t been in rehab all this time, as I had naively assumed; he’s just popular again, largely because many Republican voters are desperate to hear someone, anyone, speak up for their side.
Likewise Fox News and, now, the Post. These media entities are jockeying for control of the party’s soul, in hopes of pushing back the darkness — pun intended — that might, just might, cause the Republican party to reform into something a little more representative of America and less representative of the angry white men who’ve been the party’s guiding light. So naturally we can expect some blatant appeals to the paradigms that have proven so effective for this group in the past. They’re gambling that this “back to basics” strategy will work. And it might. Despite all the slightly creepy “post-racial” camaraderie we’ve been seeing in the nation since Election Day, most of us know full well that racism isn’t dead and that a substantial percentage of the 46% who voted against Obama did so because they hate black people (even the ones who are half white). How does one rally this group in the wake of a national defeat, and let them know that somebody in Republican Land still loves them? This cartoon is one rallying cry. Expect more.
That said, I’m not certain this strategy will still work the way that Rush and the gang think. Sure, there are plenty of folks out there who will respond positively to this appeal to their baser nature. But there are also a lot of Republicans who are taking a hard look at themselves right now, and asking some hard questions about the tried-and-true ways of doing things. Already we’re seeing signs of an unheard-of revolt by some Post staffers in the wake of this cartoon. The Republican base might be OK with it, but the base is still the minority within the party, and it’s growing smaller as time passes. The rest of the Republicans, I’m guessing, are starting to read the writing on the wall: the old ways of doing things have got to change.
Before they do, though, I’m sure we’ll see a lot more dead monkeys.
I have a question; should cartoonists avoid using symbology for white politicians (e.g., depicting them as a chimpanzee) that would be considered racist if they similarly depicted a black politician as such? Numerous politicians depicted Pres. Bush as a monkey or chimpanzee, after all.
You “know” this? How?
Considering that a larger percentage of the electorate voted Republican in the 2004 election than in the 2008 one and that both candidates in the 2004 election were white, I’d say the evidence points in the opposite direction.
No. Context matters.
—Myca
I think it would be fine to depict Obama as blindfolded by his naivete and thus having trouble finding his way in Washington. Or to have done that with Bush Sr. and the “vision thing.” It would be distasteful to do so with a literally vision-impaired politician. Many of these have nothing to do with race and a great deal more to do with basic consideration for others’ feelings. But it’s also OK to be critical of a personal aspect of a politician’s life so long as it isn’t linked to a trait outside his control; for example, I think a good cartoon about the proposed mortgage bailout would depict Democrats in Congress setting fire to a pile of money and Obama lighting a cigarette off it. The fact that Obama is a smoker isn’t really political and some people would say it’s none of my business, but it’s something he’s freely chosen to be. Ditto cartoons that make fun of him for being a lawyer, eating arugula, publishing a letter to his kids in USA Today, etc. I think there’s a huge number of things to mock about Obama without getting into racial territory.
Ron F,
The way I know that racism has been openly expressed at Republican rallies, by Republican organizations, and by Republican politicians, with little attempt by the party’s leaders to distance itself from such ignorance and hate. I don’t think these people are outliers; I think they represent a significant component of the party. And I don’t think the party could’ve successfully deployed the Southern Strategy all these years if the party’s base didn’t agree with its core tenets, which were rooted in racism.
That’s sloppy statistical interpretation on your part. The larger Republican percentage of the electorate in 2004 can reflect everything from the fact that the electorate was larger in 2008, to McCain’s unpopularity, to dissatisfaction with the economy, to the fact that the weather was better in battleground states in 2008 vs. 2004. It could mean more Republicans choose to stay home rather than choose between a Republican they didn’t like and a black man. Or it could mean nothing at all, if the numerical difference wasn’t significant.
“I have a question; should cartoonists avoid using symbology for white politicians (e.g., depicting them as a chimpanzee) that would be considered racist if they similarly depicted a black politician as such? Numerous politicians depicted Pres. Bush as a monkey or chimpanzee, after all.”–RonF
*sigh*
White people have not been compared to monkeys in a conscious effort to dehumanize whites in order to justify their persecution.
Black people have.
What about this is so hard to understand for some people?
My friend Kevin Moore, who is a political cartoonist, has been using a trio of apes as a metaphor for U.S. foreign policy for many years. His most recent cartoon makes it clear that he’s retiring those characters (for at least 4 or 8 years).
So yes, if you’re a decent cartoonist, you adjust your cartooning in response to the cultural context your cartoons appear in. That’s part of the job.
The other thing is that while I understand the context that people are referring to, it really didn’t come to my mind until I read this thread. The reason is that when someone brings up a reference to the writers of the bailout bill to me I think of Pelosi and Reid, not Obama. So I was more of a mind to see the dead chimp as “competent as a monkey” or the “if you set 1000 monkeys to type randomly at typewriters” kind of thing.
As far as context goes; sure. Context matters. And I’ll concede that in this case it brings up some racially predjudicial images that should be avoided. But it’s also a bit subtle at times. It gives people like this cartoonist to use the “what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander” analogy and gives them space to ask “Why should Obama get special treatment?” Use of a dehumanizing artifice can backfire when it’s your guy’s turn.
So Kevin’s going to get rid of those images. O.K. Now, is he going to bring them back in 4 or 8 years if we have a white president? Maybe we shouldn’t dehumanize people at all regardless of their race or political views. Isn’t dehumanizing people a bad thing? Seems I’ve read that around here sometime before.
Ron, if mocking politicians through using nonhuman things as metaphors for their policy positions is “dehumanizing” people, then it’s a safe bet that Kevin will “dehumanize” Obama at least a few times over the course of the next 4-8 years. He won’t do it using the images of apes, but I’m sure he’ll come up with something else.
Ampersand:
I was recently reminded of this for some reason I can’t remember, and I realized something that I can’t believe I (and everyone else, apparently) missed at the time: What is the cabinet position associated most strongly with foreign policy, and what did the people who filled that position during the Bush administration have in common?
I’m not bringing this up to accuse you or anyone else of hypocrisy, but I do think it’s a good illustration of how easy it is to accidentally create something that can somehow be misinterpreted as racist by someone looking hard enough.