Sotomayor Racism Watch: Cartoon Edition
You have seriously got to be fucking kidding me. This was yesterday's editorial cartoon carried in the Oklahoman. Cartoonist Chip Bok depicts Sonia Sotomayor - the Supreme Court nominee, the first Latina woman who would have this position - as a piñata. Sometimes there are no words.
Please contact the paper here, or call them directly at (405) 475-3311.
The Oklahoma Women's Network Blog has more.
Thanks to Eryn for the link.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Sotomayor Racism Watch: Cartoon Edition.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14069
Holy fuckballs.
I'm afraid that's all I have to add to the conversation at this point.
yeah, that was my initial response!
That's about all my poor abused brain can come up with at the moment, too.
What a week.
Gfwhugh? HUH?
Okay, I can't even figure out what the joke/humor was supposed to be?? I get the offensive imagery, but I can't even figure out what the cartoon was trying to say.
I guess she's supposed to be a pinata, but this doesn't look like a pinata. (For example, a pinata-version of her would be colorful, textured, rigid, doll-like.) This just looks like her HANGING there.
Exactly, making it all the worse, IMO - bringing up lynching imagery.
That's what I saw at first -- a lynching. It wasn't until I read what came after that I realized she was supposed to be a piñata. Ugh. Awful.
Yeah, at first glance I just thought she was been hanged as well. Then after a few seconds I was able to piece together the Hispanic-pinata reference. But geez...that's just awful. I don't even have words....
yeah well some people just haven't emerged out of the caves yet....
racist pieces of crap!
Hm, I took the cartoon to mean that the Republicans were symbolically beating her like a pinata with all the crap they've been saying about her...?
Right, but there are ways to represent the criticism she's been getting without resorting to racist - and even violent - imagery.
True.
Here's a good one from my local paper which I think gets the message across without resorting to violence or racist imagery:
http://timesfreepress.com/news/2009/may/31/sonia-sotomayor/?opinioncartoons
Aaah, blatant racism.
I suppose they could argue they are showing how the republicans plan to beat her and victimize her during the confirmation, and that Obama's handing them the stick to do so. But that would just make me ask: don't all justices get berated during confirmations? Don't many important APPOINTEES get berated during confirmations? Should she not be, because she's a woman?
Regardless, wtf is up with the sombrero? Seriously. Have we lost all creativity to the point where we have to resort to racist stereotypes to get a political point across?
Yeah, I agree. At first glance, it looks like she's been *hung*. I looked at it and was like ... good god, now what idiotic lynching joke.
Also, what the hell is up with the June 1 cartoon on the Oklahoman site, which shows Sotomayor saying, "I have a dream that my children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the content of their character, but as wise Latina women with the richness of their experiences and empathy."? I don't even know what that means. (Well, I think I do - mocking and belitting the experience of minorities - but it's so f'n stupid I hope I don't have to acknowledge it.)
This flurry around Sotomayor's comments come down to one thing:
They hate seeing browns empowered. End of. Drives the white folk f*cking mad. How dare they talk about their race and ethnicity!
They pretend that because powerful and successful white people don't talk about their race, it's because they find it unimportant, and therefore, why should others talk about their race? They never stop to think that white people never have to talk about their race: their genetics immediately offer them a privilege which others have to work to earn. It's not because they're "race blind", it's because they're entitled and therefore, no need to talk about it.
You know, there are white folks who read this site too. By labeling us in this way, you commit the same kind of discrimination you protest.
I've seen this type of comment on this site many times. It's really disappointing especially since no one ever seems to comment on it.
If it's not about you, don't make it about you. Just as most feminists are willing to say that men have advantages over women that they don't have to notice it is not unreasonable to say that white people have advantages that they do not have to notice.
just as we know all men aren't the "patriarchy" all white people aren't racist, but it's obvious that white privilege has played a role in how people seem to assume that white males don't have a life experience that can affect their views but that women and minorities, or women who are minorities do. It's not racist to point out that whiteness is the norm in this country and therefore people don't realize how it affects them and others
"If it's not about you, don't make it about you."
I don't think that this is a reasonable or fair response to complaints about blanket statements regarding any group. Nearly everyone that I read on this site shows every sign of being able to communicate with clarity and intelligence; therefore, if someone says "X are Y" I don't think that it would be fair for me to assume that what they actually mean is "Most X are Y" or "Some X are Y."
No, I don't think that minorities or oppressed people should have to cater to the majority, watch their tone or any of that nonsense. But the pat response of "if it's not about you, don't make it about you" is, at best, a little disingenuous. At worst, it's a catchall excuse for any sort of statement that categorizes a group in some monolithic way.
"If it's not about you, don't make it about you."
Non-offended white person here. It wasn't about me, I didn't make it about me. Easy enough.
We talk all the time about men who don't recognize male privilege and don't hedge our language. I don't see any reason for people to hedge their language when talking about white privilege either, except it is uncomfortable for people who don't recognize white privilege. I don't think that's a good enough reason.
See, the thing is, I think we should hedge our language for the benefit of others. That's part of being polite, being respectful, being good to each other.
I should note, I absolutely understand that there is a huge, huge difference between a white person making a critical, inaccurate, blanket statement about POC, and a POC making a critical, inaccurate, blanket statement about white people. A white person who does that is being racist, offensive and hurtful, and is reinforcing negative societal stereotypes that maintain the current shitty status quo. That's a big deal. A POC who does it is just being hurtful and offensive, and it isn't a big deal.
But it isn't necessarily utterly negligible either.
I just think that all of us should always be careful and respectful in our language, irrespective of our privilege relative to the privilege of who we are talking about. It's not a necessity, but I think it's a good thing.
"See, the thing is, I think we should hedge our language for the benefit of others. That's part of being polite, being respectful, being good to each other."
Fair enough. But I think requests (and often straight out commands) that people hedge their language are directed to an disproportionate degree at WOC discussing race. Emphasis on disproportionate degree.
I'm white too, but to me, this seems like you're saying, "If what you say is hurtful to me, you shouldn't say it."
I mean, I get major pissed when my white power is exposed, especially if the person does it in a forward or angry manner (*is thinking about that arguement that ensued over the Sarah Haskins post*). And I think to myself, "Why did s/he have to do that? Couldn't s/he have pointed out my racism in a nicer way?"
But then I give myself a few minutes to calm down because the anger is a result of having to acknowledge privilege (it's a hard thing to do...it gets me every time), and I realize guiltily that the person is often right.
Sorry, I don't know why that nested under the wrong post. Supposed to be a reply to Unequivocal's statement.
I'm white too, but to me, this seems like you're saying, "If what you say is hurtful to me, you shouldn't say it."
That's really not what I'm trying to get across. If the very nature of the information being communicated means that someone's feelings are going to be hurt, so be it. I want my privilege called out even if it stings.
But if we're talking about the difference between issuing an unqualified generalization ("Drives the white folk f*cking mad.") and a qualified generalization ("Drives most white folk f*cking mad.") I think that the second formulation is less likely to hurt people who don't deserve to be hurt.
Again, it's not a big deal, and it doesn't matter much at all in the grand scheme of things; I just thing that respectful language is an almost universally good thing.
I think that you are probably right that the admonition to hedge language is disproportionately directed to WOC discussing race. And that's absolutely not okay.
For what it's worth, that is really not where I'm coming from; I just think that progressive discourse is furthered across the board when we're all playing as nice as we can.
I know there are. I apologize for offending the non-racist white people, but let's face it: it's white people who are overwhelmingly responsible for the racism against minorities.
So find me another way to put it into words, and I'll stop saying, generically, "white people". Clearly, I am referring to people like those who made this cartoon, like those who made the now-famous "monkey Obama" dolls, those who actually have the balls to call a Latina woman "racist" for mentioning her race, et cetera....not those who are rallying against it.
"They hate seeing browns empowered. End of. Drives the white folk f*cking mad."
Why not say, 'people like this cartoonist'?
My point is that this is a generalization in the same vein of that made by the cartoonist. Replace 'white folk' with another race and it would still be just as wrong. Why risk alienating people that support you?
"Why risk alienating people that support you?"
If you feel insulted, just say so. I feel like it is disingenuous to tell people they are "alienating" potential allies, etc, when your intention is just that you personally were insulted. Do you actually care about alienating allies, or did you just think that was the best way to get your point across and get the other person to agree with your side?
"Why risk alienating people that support you?"
Is the same question we get here all the time from women and men who don't like the way sexism might be discussed here.
"OH, if only you were more nice about the daily racism you're describing, more people would be sympathetic!"
Are you serious?
DON'T HURT THEIR FEELINGS OR THEY MIGHT NOT TAKE UP YOUR CAUSE THAT YOU SHOULD BE SEEN & TREATED AS A HUMAN BEING! They might not deign to care about racism or sexism if you sound to angry! Be careful with your tone! etc,fucking,etc.
And you know what I say? I don't want people who would say that as my ally. Cause clearly, they already don't really care. If they actually did care about supporting me, then they'd know it wasn't them being talked about.
First of all, no one is attacking you personally; there's no need for you to take it as a personal attack. This reaction is fairly common, though, from people who have it pointed out to them that they belong to a historically privileged group. Try reading more here: http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146 . "'Check My What?' On Privilege and What We Can Do About It"
I see, thanks for the article; interesting stuff! I can see how my comment would have been better in a separate discussion.
Well, right. I totally agree. I was LMAO when I heard Republicans claiming she'd be more biased and wouldn't be objective mostly due to her race and gender. (Nevermind the fact that objectivity is a MYTH.)
It's also just another instance of how we take white as default and normal. We assume that white males, because they're default, indeed do have the ability to be objective and are not affected by their own personal experiences (which is obviously B.S. trash). Jeez, but those OTHER PEOPLE are just incapable of weighing things fairly. They're not default. They don't have the default normal experiences.
And....seriously....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY
Gahahhaa.
LMFAO!!!!! I had never seen that. Time Machine. Priceless. Thank you for that. It *almost* made me feel better after the above cartoon of Sotomayor.
I think this is trying, in the worst possible way, to say that Republicans are too scared to take shots at Sotomayor because the media is watching.
Regardless, it's outrageously WTF-inducing, with a fair bit of facepalm and headdesk around the edges. What editor saw this and thought 'yeah, lets run that!' They should be slapped with a wet trout.
I don't necessarily agree with this comic nor think it is not poorly done...but I can see how it's perhaps a scathing criticism of Republicans?
It could read that their opposition to her is so backwards that it resorts to outright ugly ignorant violence and stereotypes.
But something has gone terribly awry here, like that poorly written satire "Bicyclists need to stay on the sidewalks" article in The State News (Which the author later apologized for, explaining that it was intended as sarcasm...still not an excuse for poor writing skills and editorial judgment).
Please enlighten me if I have totally missed something.
I agree that is probably what the person is going for but it is still represented wrong. If the subject is supposed to be republicans why not make them the center of the cartoon. Instead all of the "creative liberties" are taken with Sotomayor instead of with the proposed "subject" of the cartoon.
Per example: one cartoon I saw had Sotomayor sitting on a seat above a dunking tank and it had three republican's holding a ball to throw. Behind the target was the Latina population and one republican asked if they were sure they had a good enough shot. In other words, can they sink her nomination without resorting to something that alienates a large portion of America. The focus is on the republicans and what they are trying to do vs. on Sotomayor and what she is a victim OF.
But that they're attacking her based on her race, makes the piñata relevant. That they're getting the culture wrong, makes it even funnier.
Of course, I could be reading much more into it than the cartoonist meant. Hell, it could have been intended to be racist. Hell if I know. But I thought it was funny, scathing commentary.
Here's the thing. If this cartoon was in any newspaper besides the Oklahoman, I would say you were right. However, the Oklahoman is one of the worst rated newspapers in the country. Oklahoma is the reddest state in the country- not one single county voted blue in November's election. There's no way a shitty paper like the Oklahoman, which is struggling to survive, in an uber red state would be running a cartoon criticizing Republican treatment of a female, non-white Supreme Court nomination.
I spent the last four years of my life in Oklahoma. The state has some of the highest rates of domestic violence in the country. There are some seriously unresolved racial issues. The state legislature is only 12% female. It is one of the worst places in the United States to be a woman.
I don't think we need to read too much into this cartoon. It speaks for itself loud and clear.
Yeah, as someone from Oklahoma, I'm going to have to second this take on it. I mean, really, we're talking about the highest distribution paper in the state that up until a few years ago (and maybe still?) printed a daily prayer on the FRONT PAGE. The benefit of the doubt is not something the Oklahoman will likely ever get from me. There's far too much history with this rag...
Thanks for the insight. That definitely changed the way I saw the cartoon.
Many interpretations could be pulled from the cartoon, but if you are a republican, I would read this as: They see Sotomayor as an easy target but that they are too scared to strike because of the media. Obama kind of set a trap for them in this sense (he looks pretty smug in the cartoon). But also, republican voters are probably frustrated that elected republicans may hold back because they are scared of a backlash or loss of the latina vote. They would want to avoid a justice who is seen as left leaning - so they would want their elected officials to take a stance and attack instead of being afraid due to gender/race issues.
it's not a racist cartoon. it as qtiger explained, pointing out that the repubs can't do jack to her with the media watching, even with her strung up like a pinata
Sorry Ekpe, this isn't something that's up for discussion - I'm not going to let this thread turn into a shitshow of debating whether or not depicting a Latina woman as a fucking piñata is racist. I'm just not.
when did you become the goddess to determine what's racist or not. y post the picture if its not even up for discussion. the thing is not racist. the short end of the stick, in the cartoon, are the repubs, not the judge.
I don't know. I'd rather call other people racist than hang from a tree.
Also? Sotomayor is Puerto Rican, not Mexican, which makes the inclusion of sombreros and pinata jokes even more blatantly racist, because hello, all Latin culture is NOT the same.
Definitely, bifemmefatale. That's exactly what I thought when I saw this cartoon. A lot Hispanics or Latinos get upset when you automatically blanket them as Mexicans. I guess they forget you're an American citizen if you're from Puerto Rico.
it is racist, of course. but i think i have to agree with happyland, a few comments up - i do think it's a commentary on the republicans, their racism, and *their* criticism of Sotomayar which has been so entrenched in racist imagery..
here's how the cartoon plays out for me:
the cameras are watching and the elephants look SCARED. and obama wearing the sombrero, with Sotomayar as a pinata is basically presenting the republicans with exactly what they want in the way they've been saying they want it, it looks like Obama is calling their bluff and putting cameras in front of them and the elephants look ashamed and scared. that's how i see it as a commentary on the republicans.
i'm also not saying here that no one else had been racist, but that really is the way i see the cartoon. obviously the cartoonist didn't succeed.
i haven't had coffee yet so don't be too hard on me here. this is just my initial reaction. :)
Sigh.
I'm also not convinced that the comic is a reflection of the artist's racism -- I saw it as a shocking satire on Republican racism.
The artist (Chip Bok) is a nationally syndicated cartoonist and I've liked some of Bok's work before, which is another reason for me to give Bok the benefit of the doubt.
Editorial cartoonists often take big risks, distilling a lot of info and commentary into one simple image. Sometimes even the best ones (which Bok may or may not be) miss.
I think y'all should check our Jay Smooth's reaction to Asher Roth; I feel like this may apply to some reactions here. Regardless of the artists' intentions - whether Bok was making fun of Republican racism or what (like Roth was "making fun of" Imus) - it's a ridiculously racist cartoon. Period. Like Roth, he should retract it and apologize for reinforcing racist stereotypes. Come on, people.
I really think reasonable, non-racist people can disagree about whether this particular cartoon should be retracted or whether racists should be satirized...I'm picking up on a thread of "all racist satirization reinforces stereotypes and sets us back." --that's a sentiment, not a quote.
I disagree with that sentiment. For example, one of the best-known examples of racism satirization in pop culture is Archie Bunker on "All in the Family" -- that was racism satirization on a very progressive show. I think it can be done well, and that it can be powerful and progressive when it is. I'm not prepared to swat down well-meaning people when they try and fail or try and just miss.
I did watch the Jay Smooth video, I loved it and actually reposted it on my facebook page. But I agree with mizblinkley - hipster "ironic" racism is NOT the same as as *social commentary* about racism by a political cartoonist.
This is not some person using a racial slur towards Sotomayor at some dinner party and attempting to feign irony through flippant racism. This is a political cartoonist (who yes, they are not always completely successful in their attempts) attempting to make a commentary on the racist nature of the republican's criticisms of Sotomayor.
I actually don't know how it is possible to address the racist nature of the political climate without somehow confronting it...
I feel that we often have these discussions on feministing - about art and poiltical cartoons, and I constantly feel that we are too quick to admonish the artist for the simple act of portraying a sexist / racist / ableist / (insert -ist here) image with out examining the *context* and the subversive methods of the art.
And there goes Blazing Saddles, right out the door!
I know I'm probably in for a shit storm about this, but I think this was meant to be racist. I think the artist is criticizing Obama for holding up Sotomayor as a Latina, how he's emphasized that aspect of her and how others have emphasized that aspect of her (which is why he's wearing the sombrero and part of why she's a "pinata"), ignoring some of the shifty ways she's used precedence to not be progressive. (Though I do appreciate the way she handles sexual assault cases.) I think he's also trying to make a point that Obama set himself and Sotomayor up for being fiercely attacked by Republicans and while the elephants seemed to have brought the tools for "beating" the "pinata", Obama's ready to record their racism for the world to see.
I have two opinions on why Sotomayor is a pinata - one, because of how much everyone's saying, "She's Latina! Isn't that great! She has a perspective no white man could achieve even if he tried!" This is also a commentary on how much the MEDIA (even Feministing) has been focusing on her race. The second opinion is that she doesn't look like a stiff, colorful pinata on purpose - I think she's SUPPOSED to look like she's half-lynched. The author is making comment on how the media is lynching her, for whatever reasons. Which you would expect they would be critical of such an important appointment. But there has also been a white-privilege reaction to her famous statement where she's trying to communicate that because of the life she's lived, she has a perspective that people who haven't lived that life can't obtain.
In conclusion, I think people here are overreacting. You're SUPPOSED to be upset at the imagery. You're supposed to look at this and understand how appointing a Court member is a big deal, that it's not simple, that it has to do with bipartisanship, race, class, media, gender, history of work. This cartoon is racist, but I don't think the artist is racist - I think he's making many points and people are focusing on one.
Very well said. I couldn't agree more.
Those elephants look nervous.
Arguing about whether or not this cartoon is racist is stupid, since it ultimately doesn't matter what YOU think. It could be racist, which is bad enough. As a Puerto Rican woman, I don't like seeing another Puerto Rican woman hanging from a tree with Mexican imagery surrounding her.
What I don't like is Barack Obama being in that picture. He's not hanging her for the Republicans to attack her. That's what Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich are doing. If they were in the cartoon instead of Barack Obama, I'd still be bothered by Sotomayor's image. but I think it would be a more accurate representation of what the conservatives are doing to Sotomayor.
The whole point is that Obama is hanging her. He's saying to the GOP, "I picked the perfect candidate. Here, TRY to take a whack at her. There's no way you can." Or, he could be saying, "I picked a Latina so you would look like racists if you tried to attack her." That's why the Republicans look so scared. Obama is the one who is "unveiling" Sotomayer as his pick, so he has to be in the cartoon to make the point.
This is satire. And one characteristics of satire is that it is supposed to make you mad the first time you read it. But once you ponder it and move pass the face value, you get the real meaning of the matter. I say we should all do that.
We are each bound to come up with different takes on this, which is fine because we all don’t have the same experiences and outlooks. Using Jonah and the whale in the bible as an example, I would argue that Jonah swallowed the whale; you would argue that the whale swallowed Jonah. I believe it is not racist, you believe otherwise. Let’s agree to disagree.
Feministing. Love your site more than anything, you guys are great. But please, PLEASE, stop with the "I have no words" or "this makes me speechless" nonsense that is seen in so many of your posts. It's a touch tedious, and we know you do in fact have the words to express how you feel.
Tell you what, when you blog - you can use whatever wording you find appropriate, and I'll continue to do the same.
Regardless of the intent of the cartoonist and the easing effect of the images that make it, contextually, slightly more palatable (e.g. scared elephants), the cartoon still contains very offensive imagery. Certainly, the intent of the artist, along with his overall body of work should be considered when consdering HIM, but not when viewing the CARTOON.
Try thinking about it another way. Imagine if, in 2008, I made a cartoon showing Barrack Obama on a cross wearing a hijab, John McCain standing below him with a whiskey bottle, stakes, and hammer in hand, and right-wing reporters standing around with scared looks on their faces. Now, just because, ultimately, I was trying to make fun of right-wing journalist, does that mean the cartoon is a-okay? Hell no. African-Ameicans, Jews, Muslims, Irish-Americans, and Christians would, understandably, be offended.
Also, little or no attention was paid to national origin when Roberts, Breyer, or O’Connor were nominated. Some attention was paid to Scalia, but he is a darker-skinned Italian with black hair and brown eyes. A wee bit of attention was paid to Alito in this regard, but only to highlight the advancement of his immigrant family. In any case, the VOLUME and OUTRAGEOUSNESS of attention to ancestral national origin, especially in major media, is wholly unique to Sotomayor.