(no subject)

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Below are two cartoons. Both have been published in the Los Angeles Times, but only one has the Times complaining of racism. YOU MAKE THE CALL:




[Poll #1808964]

The problem with the knee-jerk accusations of racism from the left is twofold:

1) It assumes that nearly any nonstandard depiction of a ideologically-correct racial minorities is racist unless it can be sufficiently justified.

2) It becomes blind to the racism when such depictions are made of ideologically-incorrect minorities who they dislike.

The Los Angeles Times ran a depiction of Condoleezza Rice portrayed as a slave from Gone With the Wind with, from the looks of things, nary a peep.

The Los Angeles Times ran an entire article on how the photo supposedly works off of the "uppity negro" trope as opposed to it simply being a well-known historical depiction of Michelle Obama as the out-of-touch, money-happy queen who has had the phrase "let them eat cake" attributed to her as a response to the bread shortages. Marie Antoinette, of course, continued to live in luxury in her $4 million vacation castle.

For the record, I don't think it's necessarily fair to criticize the Obamas for the cost of a vacation that is largely that high due to the modern security needs of the Presidency. It also, however, isn't fair to once again default to the "that's racist" card whenever a criticism of a minority left wing politician comes about.

EDIT: The first image was changed on me for whatever reason before, I have replaced it with the correct image.

Comments

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I don't see the racism in either of the cartoons, then again I don't know the context behind the first one.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

What context would such a depiction be tolerable?

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

And neither did Trump have any justification for calling Jon Stewart's jokes about Herman Cain "a racist rant (http://www.thewrap.com/tv/article/donald-trump-accuses-jon-stewart-racist-rant-herman-cain-32395)", especially since there was nothing racist there (except, presumably, the perceived "tone of his voice, [and] the inflection").

Now, could we have an lj-cut, please? Thanks.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Why is the cartoon with Rice labeled "Michelle Obama in the role of a life time"?

After my second cup of coffee perhaps I answered too quickly; "neither", is simply a knee jerk reaction I have to claims of racism...I rarely see it.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Need moar context.

[msretro.livejournal.com]

I remember a huge reaction to the Condi Rice cartoon. And, yeah, I found it extremely racist. Portraying a highly educated Secretary of State as an ignorant slave was in very poor taste.

I don't see any racism in the second. They're portraying her as out of touch royalty. (Which, by the way, I don't think is warranted. However, I don't think it's racist, either.)

For the record, if you are counting reactions by political leanings, I'm a big ole flaming lefty.

[taiki.livejournal.com]

I don't think it matters. People who have issues with at this level of the debate and actual state of racial equality are kind of missing the bigger picture. These are really small details that often float out there out of context.

Also, I often find conservatives arguing about this level of racism tend to be trying to prove a point that their own previous perceived racism wasn't actually racism and remain fixated until they get told, "No, you aren't racist." Then if that concession is ever given it's lorded around like a some sort of asshole trophy. So, I'm saying both, and giving no quarter.

This is a pointless point to argue. One made it through the editorial process and the other didn't. Big deal. That's not the worst thing facing people of color these days.

[kayjayuu.livejournal.com]

One made it through and the other didn't because of ideology, not content.

History is written by the victors, including the editorial staff.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Given all the vacations George W. Bush took I find GOP protestations in this regard to be extremely insincere. And I also find that the association with Marie Antoinette is distasteful, and Jeff, she did not continue to live in luxury, she had her head chopped off by the Terror. This whole post is disgusting and vulgar, but what does one expect from someone who declares FDR and Stalin to be moral issues and FDR to be a fascist?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The racist implications in the first one *start* with the black person unable to use proper grammar, the racist implications in the second are that 1) no black people are ever "really" financially successful and 2) the Obamas are as out of touch as Louis XVI and family who all had their heads chopped off in public executions. It's like holding up Hitler and Stalin signs to claim that UHC is equivalent to Katyn and Babi Y-oh wait.

And again, how many fucking vacations did GWB take with nary so much as a peep from the fiscal responsibility and no waste of taxpayer money crowd?

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

As a foreigner, I don't know. I would need some clarification on both. Especially the first one.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

This may help ;) (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1300734.html?thread=103567102#t103567102)

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

I'd say both are racist in one way or another. The first one because of the aforementioned similarity to Gone With the Wind, and it's not exactly a flattering depiction (though in my opinion it makes her look Asian for some reason). The second one because it follows other whiny depictions of Michelle Obama as being somehow selfish for taking her family on vacation (something every First Lady before her has also done and something with Dubya and his wife did with completely absurd regularity during his terms with nary a peep from these conservative idiots). Now, it's hard to tell if the conservatives are pissed off because of Michelle and Barack Obama's skin color, or if they're pissed off because they hate Obama and everything he does is therefore bad, but the fact remains that if it was John McCain jetting off to Arizona instead of Obama heading to Hawaii nobody on the right would have a problem.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

It's mild but I see the first as more of an insensitive racist sleight.

[thies.livejournal.com]

first one but barely and only if you want to be overly pc

[korean-guy-01.livejournal.com]

First one is overtly racist.

The second one will have racist claims and be labeled that way. "You have a problem with Obama because he is black (I can feel it), therefore your point is racist and all your other points about him are racist too."

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

It's only fair to play the 'that's racist' card when the criticism of a left-wing politician uses racist language and symbols, how's that?

Otherwise this post looks like a pointless attempt at pot-stirring.

[lai-choi-san.livejournal.com]

I fail to see what the Revolutionaries have to do with the Conservatives.

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

The first references a characterization in the minstrel show tradition. So yeah, racist.

Apropos of the lack of a reaction from the left, it took me about fifteen seconds with Google to find a post (http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2004/11/20/racist-cartoons-of-condoleezza-rice/) about it on a lefty blog that I read.

Since you're likely to bring the question up, I doubt that Danziger, the cartoonist, holds some kind of bigoted malice toward Dr. Rice. Rather, he is inattentive enough to have failed to think of how racist the character he's referencing is. So he has performed a racist act, in the sense that he has done something supportive of racist injustice, and not knowing better is irresponsible.

The second is weak tea in comparison.

I can make the argument for its racism. The recurring criticism that the Obamas are living extravagantly on the public dime, coming from people who are only noticing this aspect of the First Family now that the residents of the White House are Black, does echo the old and unmistakably racist Black Welfare Queen image ... and here we have Michelle Obama literally portrayed as a queen, spending public money irresponsibly. So I do believe that there's some racism in the mix. But the image doesn't hinge on the racist element the way the first one does; it's not hard to imagine the same image used with the same valence against a First Lady who is White.

I notice that the Media Matters post (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201201040001) referenced in that goofy LA TImes article doesn't call it “racist”.

So the first is in the Good Gods That Is Racist category and the second is in the Hmmm Notice This Subtle Dimension Of Racist Symbolism category. Nowhere near the same weight class.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Apropos of the lack of a reaction from the left, it took me about fifteen seconds with Google to find a post about it on a lefty blog that I read.

Well, it's the point that the Times has published both images - the second image was, to them, indisputably racist. The first image was appropriate enough to be published outright as a standard editorial cartoon. Pretty significant difference.

Hmmm Notice This Subtle Dimension Of Racist Symbolism category.

Or the "hey, look, racism in everything" category.

[awdrey-gore.livejournal.com]

Thanks for sharing your always unique perspective.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

1. HUR LEFT RIGHT LEFT

2. The one with Condi references a classic racist portrayal from Gone with the Wind.

3. She still helped lie us into a war.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

4. Sometimes even the presidents family gets to go on vacation. Get over it.

[kayjayuu.livejournal.com]

Technically, if someone in an affected group says something is racist, it is. No amount of privileged protestation can change that, since the whole racism/privilege dynamic is based on who has what power over whom. As I understand it. Could be wrong.

That said, I think because of this we as a whole people (not divided into hyphens) have lost the ability to use common cultural references -- right or wrong -- as reference points. Political cartoons in particular use this method to make points without having to mansplain them in a page and a half of newsprint. That's why we love them so.

I keep thinking back to the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode, Darmok," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darmok) where Picard has to contend with an alien whose language is made up of cultural metaphors. If various -isms would have evolved within said culture, their ability to communicate would have been totally destroyed. And to a point, that's what's happening here. The conversation gets totally shut down because of feelings. Or as the wiki says, "Without knowing the stories behind the metaphors, the Tamarian language remains indecipherable."

"Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra!" "THAT'S RACIST!" ".... um, er, um.... "

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Technically, if someone in an affected group says something is racist, it is. No amount of privileged protestation can change that, since the whole racism/privilege dynamic is based on who has what power over whom. As I understand it. Could be wrong.

That's definitely a belief held by many, yes. You are accurately reflecting the way that some consider racism.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

The first one is racist.

The second one is fucking stupid.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

I get the racism from the Condi cartoon due to the "ignorant black" language of the caption. The Obama/Marie Antoinette one appears to be about having money to go on expensive vacations - which would put it in the same lame-o category as teleprompter jokes, I guess... unless the artist was advocating beheading Michelle... or something.

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

To put a finer point on my early comment, I think both are racist but for different reasons. The first one is more obviously racist, because the content is racist. The second one is not racist on its face but the sentiment that it derives from, the unhinged right-wing hysteria over the Obamas ever taking a vacation, is rooted in racism and therefore that racism infects the cartoon.

The artists of both cartoons should be ashamed. While I may agree with the underlying point of the first one, Condi (and the rest of the Bush Administration) did lie about WMD in Iraq, adding the racist element only serves to diminish the point and make it more easily ignorable (much as I hate David Letterman's constant fat jokes about Chris Christie because they serve to diminish legitimate criticism of him as a horrible Governor and dangerously ambitious politician).

[skull-bearer.livejournal.com]

Ah, blow, made a boo-boo. For some reason I read racist as sexist and clicked the Rice photo. That one is sexist, because it assumes women don't know anything other than child-rearing. The others I see as more criticism (drawing a comparison between Antoinette's supposed 'let them eat cake' [which she never said] and Mrs Obama taking a holiday in the middle of a recession).

I would say none of them are racist persay.