Let's jump right on in, shall we?
Last week the Missouri House of Representatives spent two days debating a non-binding resolution voicing the majority Republican Party's disdain for the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).
No, you didn't miss anything. The Freedom of Choice Act, which would codify Roe, has not been reintroduced in Congress.
But Missouri Republicans weren't about to let that detail prevent them from scoring panderific points on the people's dime with Missouri Right to Life.
On the second day of debate Representative Bryan Stevenson (R-Webb City) scored some points with those who still adore the confederacy in my home state when he compared the not introduced so not really worthy of resolving to dislike and certainly not worthy of two days of the people's time FOCA with...well, what he feels was the federal government's unlawful "war of northern aggression."
You may know it as the American Civil War.
Sigh.
Pro-choice Missourians are used to crazy talk from anti-choice state legislators - Rep. Cynthia Davis is pretty much guaranteed to make the highlight reel each session. But I think Stevenson's rant is particularly illuminating because it speaks to a core set of beliefs and values that too many people keep giving lawmakers and others a pass on.
A pass that Stevenson...and others who I'll get to in a minute...isn't exactly asking for and most certainly doesn't deserve.
But when I posted about Stevenson's verbal malfunction on my personal blog a curious thing happened...some folks instinctively pondered whether Stevenson was just misinformed. They wondered whether he was speaking out of ignorance rather than a solid belief that the confederacy was wronged and that the Civil War and all that followed wasn't really necessary to dismantle the atrocity of slavery.
And did I mention that Stevenson wasn't asking for all that understanding away of his statement?
Oh, Stevenson quickly apologized for having upset anyone.
"The terminology I used did cause offense, and I'm sorry for that."
And he was quick to self diagnose himself as not suffering from the epidemic of prejudice.
After all, he is "strongly opposed to slavery in any and all aspects" and "not prejudiced in any way."
But, in an interview with the Joplin Globe, Stevenson defending his view that FOCA...which hasn't been introduced in Congress...is equal to the "illegal expansion of federal authority" that he feels was the Civil War. And that slavery would have gradually gone away...like it did in England.
Blink.
So why the hell does this matter?
Glad you asked!
See, the casual dismissal of Stevenson's inaccurate bigotry and the response of some to that utterly indefensible NY Post monkey cartoon are examples of what I like to call public displays of not understanding oppression or the structures that support it.
As I read through some of the comments to newspaper articles about Stevenson's bullshit I was struck by how many people use the "he's just being a dumb white guy, not a pro-confederate racist bigot" dismissive tactic...and I can't help but wonder if those folks would have said the same thing about Bull Connor or Strom Thurmond or any of the other ig'nant as hell racist gradualist as long as gradual equals never assholes.
Do these people feel that blackie cartoons were no big deal...that watermelon and fried chicken jokes were just "of a time" and "not that bad even back then"?
Do these people honestly think that a cartoon of a monkey blatantly connected to our president...who is shown in cartoon having been shot...is no big fucking deal?
While some of y'all hesitate...you may want to note this this isn't the first time the cartoonist has gone there.
He meant it...and he ain't asking for folks to defend him as simply being misguided anymore than Rep. Stevenson is asking for people to re-interpret his meaning to be anything other than what he said.
This mess...the verbal affection for the confederacy coupled with some historically inaccurate bullshit about how slavery would have gone away...the use of primate images to depict my people...the casual insertion of a cartoon showing a primatized Obama shot (Christ!)...all that mess goes with and fuels the system of oppression against people of color that is also being dismissed as no big fucking deal when people dismiss all that mess.
Just because some people can't bear the fact that this nation is far from post racial.
As for the cartoon under discussion today...well, given the history of this nation, black public figures and guns...
Lawd, have mercy.
...someone ought to be ashamed.
But that'd be too much like right.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Notes from a bitch....
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12037
Do these people feel that blackie cartoons were no big deal...that watermelon and fried chicken jokes were just "of a time" and "not that bad even back then"?
Something that struck me while discussing the Post cartoon online today, and I relaized I've heard similar excuses in the past, is that some caucasian people will say something very racially insensitive, and then try to mask it by claiming that they are so personally oblivious to racism that they just can't see it as an issue, cuz' we're all PEOPLE, right? Example:
"I don't see why people find this racist. i guess I just don't think in those terms! I'm so good and non-racist that I would never liken an African American to a monkey, and therefore the idea that someone would do so JUST NEVER occured to me, golly-gee! What's more, since YOU think it might be racist, maybe YOU'RE the racist one for thinking that way!"
Umm, no. While I'm not black and can't claim to know what it is like to have experienced that sort of racism, I've learned enough in school, read enough literature, heard enough songs on the subject, and have had friends and lovers who've experienced it. In other words, I am aware that it exists. I have a hard time believing the people who claim otherwise have never at least heard of such things, and even if they hadn't, when did it become fashionable to flaunt your own ignorance as a sign of moral superiority? I guess they also never heard that saying about not learning from history and being doomed to repeat it.
In similar terms (or maybe not, your comment just reminded me of a thought I had while reading the cartoon thread), that if an individual person wasn't aware of something being racist, that somehow that nullified the racism, as if there isn't a whole world going on outside of that person.
"Well, I didn't know that was racist and interpreted it a different way, so maybe there's a non-racist meaning to it."
I think there's this tendency for white people who care on some level (in this instance a political level) about racism and prejudice but haven't spent much time thinking about them to see the ultimate goal of non-racism as color blindness.
Hence the "I didn't know that was racist!" Obliviousness to racial imagery and stereotypes are sort of the flipside to obliviousness about a person's race.
Agreed. While my FIRST reaction to the cartoon was more along the lines of strictly someone shooting the president, it took all of three seconds to get to the African American/ monkey/ racist implications. I don't think you have to know people, read or hear about this sort of thing to see the problem there. And you cannot dismiss the existence of something simply because you don't see it, or don't want to. Just as an aside, humor is supposed to be funny, if you have to explain it, it is not funny. The Post went through an entire gymnastics routine to explain this one.
The cartoonist's "explanation" of the cartoon was what appalled me most. He used two completely unconnected thoughts: that crazy chimpanzee in Connecticut or whatever, and the writing of the stimulus bill. What the hell does one have to do with the other? In what way, that would justify the drawing of a cartoon, are these two events connected? They're not. At all. It's so insulting.
The whole thing really scared me, as I'm sure it did all other conscious people. I cannot fathom that this was allowed - that it wasn't revoked ... an image of our PRESIDENT getting shot. WHY is this okay? I have been terrified, since Obama won the nomination, that he is going to be assassinated. Seeing this reminds me (sadly) that this fear is not an irrational one, given the fate of powerful black leaders in our past.
That explanation makes perfect sense. He used the news event of a chimp being shot to make a statement about the writing of the bill. This is exactly how I interpreted the comic on reading it.
Why do you all have to be right about this? Why does it have to be intentionally racist in order for there to be a reason to talk about the problematic fact that it *can* be interpreted as racist and the historical reasons why? Why do you have to spend so much effort trying to convince everyone that:
(a) the artist, in spite of his own description of the intention of the comic (a description which corresponds to the interpretation many people had INDEPENDENTLY of reading his words) is REALLY just trying to cover up his racist intentions, and
(b) those of us who say we read it differently are trying to do the same. OMG it's a conspiracy!
It's illogical.
There's so much I want to say (and honestly, so much I've already said in the other thread that I feel like you're just ignoring or dismissing), but I think really the gist of it is this -- I find it highly suspect whenever anyone responds to a historically oppressed group's complaints about something by saying "You guys are being oversensitive/illogical/hysterical/crazy." Please, engage with us in this discussion, this struggle to be recognized and respected -- you can have a different opinion, but if you can't enter into this discussion with a deep respect for the compromised position the oppressed party is already in, and take the time to seriously listen and consider what they are telling you, then you are part of the problem. (See also this comment I made to you in the other thread).
And what, exactly, am I saying that indicates that I don't have an appreciation for the compromised position of this oppressed party? I've repeatedly said that this comic needs to be addressed, talked about, and apologized for simply because it MIGHT be interpreted as racist.
I don't think it's oversensitive to see racism in this comic, and I am actually quite chagrined that I needed to have those possible implications pointed out to me. What I think is oversensitive is accusing anyone who finds the alternate interpretation more likely, thinks the racism was unintentional, etc., of only holding this opinion because they are, themselves, racist apologists.
AMEN, SharkFu.
I'm still trying to find a decent explanation (at all, let alone plausible) of *how* the cartoon *isn't* racist. And that's looking at it from well outside the particular American context.
Here is the explanation of how this comic is not intentionally racist:
The author used the news event of the chimp shooting to make a statement about the writing of the stimulus bill. It is a reference to common colloquialisms along the lines of, "This manual is so disorganized, it looks like a monkey wrote it!"
This is the interpretation that many, many people first saw when they read the comic, including myself (though I was immediately able to see where others were coming from in viewing it as racist). Given that it is also the interpretation that the author himself described as the intention behind the comic, and given the fact that this author probably lacks the racist analysis to even be AWARE of the racist "monkey" slur in order to be able to use it in a comic, I find it illogical to assume that the intention he states wasn't the true intention.
Does that mean people who interpeted it differently are in some way deficient? No. Does this mean we can't open a dialogue, call for apologies, discuss the racist implications, etc., based around the mere fact that this cartoon COULD be interpeted as horribly racist and WAS interpreted as such by many people? No. But the dogged insistence upon the racist interpretation and the constant slandering of those holding an alternate point of view is really starting to get on my nerves.
I do think if you can't acknowledge the racist interpretation of this comic, you are highly lacking in racial sensitivity. But alternately, if you can't recognize the existence of the non-racist interpretation as anything other than racist itself, you've become oversensitive.
The cartoon is obviously racist. *IF* the President wasn't black, it wouldn't be racist, but since the President is, in the context, it is racist, and obviously the artist, judging from his other works, meant it as such. If the President weren't black, the correlation wouldn't have been made, but honestly in that event, the artist probably wouldn't have drawn it.
As for whether they should have published it, I'm an artist and I'm against censorship, however bad said piece is, so personally, if they wanted to publish it, fine by me. If they don't like the firestorm that resulted from it, they should really think about what they publish next time.
It is my understanding that this was a "fuck you" from the editor who I have read is apparently leaving his position anyway. Apparently the editor doesn't like how Rupert Murdoch likes Obama, or so I've heard. Personally, the revelation that Murdoch likes Obama kinda shocks me.
christ on a cracker, they cannot pretend it wasn't connected to those problematic racial images. we're not buying it. if poc say it's racist, then it is.
and i echo shark-fu's outrage at an image suggesting *shooting* our president. would such a cartoon have been published during the chimperor's reign? i think not.
Yeah, I feel like the shooting aspect ought to be played up more too -- as if the monkey thing weren't bad enough, the police violence angle is reprehensible...
While I agree with most of the article, I can sympathize with Stevens as far as the civil war comments. While it may be somewhat racially insensitive, he is clearly talking about parallels between then and now on states' rights and the limit of the constitution.
Do these people honestly think that a cartoon of a monkey blatantly connected to our president...who is shown in cartoon having been shot...is no big fucking deal?
No, we think there was an alternative interpretation of the comic which connects the monkey to the concept of bad writing, not the president himself or his race.
This doesn't mean you're necessarily wrong in your interpretation, and it certainly doesn't mean that it's wrong to call for some sensititivity and discussion and apologies due to the mere fact that this comic is so commonly being interpreted as racist.
But stop, stop, stop, STOP! implying that anyone who initially interpreted the comic differently just doesn't care about racism because we have the audacity to have our own interpretation.
One more thought before I put this to rest:
The cartoon makes a connection between the monkey and the writer(s) of the economic stimulus bill. I did not assume that this was meant to imply Barack Obama because...Barack Obama did not write the stimulus bill.
So much for me putting things to rest. Goodbye feministing. It's been fun, but I'm just a little bit sick of the lack of critical thought.
Look, your arguments are irritating and insulting in a way sort of similar to the WHAT ABOUT THE MENS arguments. I will readily admit that there might be a kernel of truth in what you say (especially since there are points on which we seem to actually agree) but now BOTH of these threads have been spent dealing with you and your "alternative" interpretation and possible defenses of the intentions of the cartoonist and so on, instead of actually being able to engage with what the original poster actually said. We end up talking about this scenario in which the world is less bad than the original poster thinks it is, instead of taking a serious look at the very possible and even likely world in which it is really that bad. Basically, even if there is some legitimacy to your points, NOW IS NOT THE TIME. What you're doing is dominating this space with your insistence on your point, which, whether you consciously intend it or not, ends up denying a certain amount of legitimacy and respect to the original post, which is doubly insulting because that kind of denial of legitimacy and respect is ultimately what these complaints are about in the first place.
One more thought before I put this to rest:
The cartoon makes a connection between the monkey and the writer(s) of the economic stimulus bill. I did not assume that this was meant to imply Barack Obama because...Barack Obama did not write the stimulus bill.
Perhaps the divide in interpretation is less between people who do and don't understand racist overtones and more between people who do and don't know the details of political process?
Perhaps the divide in interpretation is less between people who do and don't understand racist overtones and more between people who do and don't know the details of political process?
Or maybe people are actually paying attention to what the actual message of the cartoon is rather than desperately trying to dig a demonstrated bigot out of the hole he's dug himself into this time. Could you be any more condescending? Jesus.
And why would I want to dig a bigot out of his hole? Why on earth would I be "desperate" to do so? This guy sounds like an utter jerk and I can promise you I have no aversion to acknowledging the existences of continued, strong racism in our society (I write things like this in my spare time, for cripes sake!).
Why on earth would I be "desperate" to do so?
That's what I've asked, with no response. You probably posted more times in the other thread than anyone else in defense of this cartoon. You're the only one who's come to Shark-Fu's space in this thread to continue that defense and used cringe-worthy buzzwords like "oversensitive."
What is at stake for you? I mean, really?
What are you, a programmed search engine? Just because I use the word "oversensitive" doesn't mean I'm using it in the "buzzword" fashion you detest. Use your brain and analyze what I'm actually saying with a word, not just that I'm using it.
What's at stake for me is intellectual honesty. I'm not interested in defending this cartoon or its author, but I am interested in defending people who didn't read racism in this immediately (who read the comic AS THE AUTHOR STATES HE INTENDED IT), because we're all being unrelentingly attacked as intentional racist apologists.
Not reading racism in it immediately is not what the problem is.
The problem is that when after it's pointed out, you don't say, "Oh, crap, I see what you're saying," and instead keep arguing and telling people who are the targets of the racism that they're wrong.
After seeing the other cartoons this cartoonist did, why do you think he has enough integrity to say what he really intended the drawing to mean?
lg, I see your point, but I think there is a very big part your glossing over. It's not confusion on the political process that is getting people twisted up over this. The stimulus bill is attributed to the President, it has been attributed to him by the Post, by the cartoonist, by numerous news sources, talking heads and random people on the street. Getting from those attributions to the racism in this cartoon does not require a leap over the Grand Canyon. And just from a personal angle, I had only seen brief headlines on the pet chimpanzee story, and did not get the reference at all. I'm sure there are others in the same boat. Making the stimulus bill/ chimpanzee shooting connection is a much bigger jump.
On top of that, if someone points out an interpretation of something you did not intend, you make a real apology, you don't make excuses or try to explain it away. Again, if you have to explain it, it IS. NOT. FUNNY.
On top of that, if someone points out an interpretation of something you did not intend, you make a real apology, you don't make excuses or try to explain it away. Again, if you have to explain it, it IS. NOT. FUNNY.
I never had to have this comic explained to me. The author's interpretation was the first conclusion I jumped to upon reading the comic, and it came to mind immediately. In my case, I think this is probably because the "this document is so haphazard, it looks like it was written by monkey!" joke is one that I use often.
Actually, there are many reasons I didn't see a racist meaning behind the comic when I first read it: the above is one. The fact that I don't connect obama with being the writer of the stimulus package is another. The fact that I was aware of the news event referenced is a third. Most of all, though, I understood the author's intent because, as different as his opinions may be from mine, he writes in a satirical style that makes intuitive sense to me, personally.
Ultimately, the point I'm trying to make is not which interpretation of the comic is right and which one is wrong. I argue for how I interpretated it not because I need to convince people, but because I'm trying to show that yes, you can see the racism as unintentional without having your own racist motives.
But more importantly, I'm saying that the racism here shouldn't HAVE to be intentional in order to be a problem. I'm stunned to be encountering so much resistance on THAT front...
LG, I'm not trying to argue your point that the comic may not automatically be interpreted as racist by many. However, this cartoonist has drawn problematic cartoons that have OBVIOUS racist connotations (comparing Obama to a thug) in the past. He has drawn homophobic cartoons in the past. To claim that the racism is unintended is naive at best. Interpretation of any kind of art work is personal, so if racism wasn't YOUR first reading, I get that (it actually wasn't mine either). But when someone says look at it from this other perspective, and that other perspective is one that has much bigger and much more damaging implications, maybe you stop defending your personal interpretation. The racism doesn't have to be intentional to be a problem, but given the context and the artist, it seems willfully ignorant to believe it wasn't.
Blah blah blah, this is you arguing points I ALREADY AGREE WITH AND HAVE REPEATEDLY STATED! Geez louise!
Then what are you arguing exactly? You continue to defend your interpretation, and continue to defend the artists claims, despite obvious evidence to the contrary. Are you trying to be willfully ignorant? Or just being an asshole? Either way it seems you are the one who lacks critical thought on this issue.
If you want to get a look at Bryan Stevenson in action, the Turner Report, a Joplin Missouri blog, has posted some commentary about Stevenson and a video of him at http://rturner229.blogspot.com/2009/02/bryan-stevenson-big-gun-big-mouth.html