I spent Sunday at Abyssinia Baptist Church. It may have been the most "African-American" service I'd ever seen--emphasis on both halves of the hyphen. The service began with the choir singing "Lift Every Voice" and ended with them singing "We Shall Overcome." There was this weird inversion of the past--plenty of whites in attendance, and some Asian cats also. But virtually all of them were seated up top in the balcony, and I was left thinking about the days when blacks had to sit in the balcony for movies and plays. This wasn't intentional, but the the bottom rows filled up fairly quick with regulars, and the top was all that was left.
There was the most beautiful choral music, I mean the sort of choral music that made me wish Primo or Rza were sitting next to me digging for samples. Forgive my fumbling here, I did not come up in the church so words may fail here. What I want to say is the music sounded very Westernized, the sort an ignoramus, like me, would expect to see white folks singing. But it was beautiful, and in fact had been authored by a black woman, "Non Nobis Domine" was the piece, I think.
Butts ripped shop of course. He's an awesome preacher. Maybe there's hope for a heathen like me, yet. But much of the sermon was fixated on Rupert Murdoch and last week's cartoon. And then yesterday, I was in D.C. for a panel at the Aspen Institute, and many of the questions revolved around the Post cartoon, the New Yorker cartoon, and Eric Holder's "nation of cowards" quote. The questions in the air seemed to be, who should be offended and how much? I, mostly, defended the New Yorker, saying I thought the cover was pretty bad, but evidence of a plot was wanting. I didn't really defend the Post, so much as I couldn't find my way into the offensive.
Perhaps I shouldn't address this--for whatever reason bad cartoons just don't boil the blood around these parts. Still, I kept thinking about it, and it hit me when I saw this video below. John McCain tries to knife Obama at yesterday's event. It's not that raising the cost of the helicopter is illegitimate. But that stupid, passive-aggressive grin comes over him just as he delivers the line. We've all seen that grin before--it's usually paired with a "my friends." But later for that, watch Obama's response. Classy. Cool. And funny. He's not concerned with whether McCain is trying to knife him or not. He's beyond it. I think there is a serious lesson for black folks in the manner in which Obama handles opposition--the legitimate opposition, but especially the illegitimate opposition.
More than any black public figure in recent memory, Obama understands the problems with a strategy premised on taking offense. It's not that Obama never takes umbrage, it's that he's careful about what and when he takes umbrage. I don't really know what the line is. But I know taking offense at calling the stimulus bill a spending bill hits people in a way that, say, taking offense at Michael Steele wouldn't.
There a certain sect of the American commentariat which believes black people complain about the country too much. Usually this same sect spends their time complaining about the country even more. I'm not down with that. But I think all of us should think hard about what we take offense, why, and what good ultimately comes of it. Apologies, I guess. I'm not sure that cartoons are worth our time. But governors denying unemployment benefits to tax-payers, in order to build some political cred, certainly is.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
We need the new helicopters because the last bunch was purchased
WHEN RICHARD NIXON WAS PRESIDENT.
Sure, I know they have been upkept well..but, damn, sometimes it's time to mothball stuff.
Nixon was re-elected in 1972.
It's 2009.
The whole world -aviationally- has changed.
We need new helicopters..and they better be from an AMERICAN COMPANY.
Of course, I will agree we don't need 20. Make it 10.
I was pretty meh about the cartoon, but I will say that the outrage did cause some frank discussion to go on in this country at least in some small corners. Rupert Murdock issuing an apology is not a small thing at all and if the outrage over the cartoon leads to more constructive conversation about why it might have hurt some people then I guess in the end its a good thing. I don't think Julian Bond saying the cartoon was an invitation for someone to assasinate President Obama was a help in that conversation but some of the marching and denouncements evidently was. It is a fine line we walk but I guess somebody has to step across it at times for progress to be made.
I think there is a serious lesson for black folks in the manner in which Obama handles opposition--the legitimate opposition, but especially the illegitimate opposition.
More than any black public figure in recent memory, Obama understands the problems with a strategy premised on taking offense. It's not that Obama never takes umbrage, it's that he's careful about what and when he takes umbrage.
I think the President cares about making White people feel good. I'm not concerned about making White people feel good. And, I don't think most Black people are, Coates. You're a Black man in America, and you know how many times you bite your tongue before you actually speak up and say ' this is racist, folks'. I don't think most White folks believe folks like me when they say, ' if you only knew how many times I was silent, but I can't be silent anymore'.
The continuation comes with the:
a) half-assed NON-apology
b) the ' oh, you're being so sensitive', ' you just don't understand'. It's getting to the point where someone has to be wearing a bedsheet for White folks to actually stand up and say, ' yes, that shit is racist' - because that's the simple-simon EASY way. And we all know racism, the subtle, daily grinding racism that Black folks live with on a daily basis - is NOT Easy.
I think this is President Obama's first rule for politics and life: Pick your battles.
I always try to live up to that advice and rarely do. President Obama (man, that sounds better than President Bush!) seems to have fully incorporated that rule into his entire being more than any person alive.
T-NC, I'm with you on this one. I couldn't muster up earnest outrage about that Post cartoon. When I saw the McCain clip from the summit yesterday I thought, "This is why I don't have to come to the President's defense every time some crap is thrown his way. He can handle his business." Oh, yeah, and the way he called out "rising Republican star" Eric Cantor - I'm still laughing about that one.
Convening a summit that includes your former rival and your most vociferous critics - and then taking questions from them publicly - well, that takes cajones. The President doesn't need us on the front line fighting these small (IMHO) battles about cartoons. Those distractions keep us from our real work - fixing this country after 8 years of Bush-Cheney incompetence.
God, McCain has gotten assholic. Maybe he always was and the press just propped him up, but speaking as someone who used to really like the man, its disappointing.
Oh man, Non Nobis Domine is an incredible piece of music. In the film version of "Henry V" it's sung during the scene where everyone is searching the battlefield of Agincourt after it's been decided. What a way to drive home the sense of loss.
Obama understands that someone's behavior speaks for itself. And, in fact, not responding to it or rising to it makes it speak louder. I admire that immensely.
"You're a Black man in America, and you know how many times you bite your tongue before you actually speak up and say ' this is racist, folks'. I don't think most White folks believe folks like me when they say, ' if you only knew how many times I was silent, but I can't be silent anymore'."
You gotta speak for yourself on this one. I can't recall ever having done this. Not once. I didn't really have to deal with people, en masse, who weren't black until I was in my 20s. Chalk it up to that, I guess. Also, I've never worked a corporate job for any long period of time. Maybe that's part of it.
Agree Kat. I used to admire McCain, though I agreed with him on issues about half the time or less. But he comes across as such a petty little man in this clip. Sure debating the cost of presidential helicopters might be legitimate, but McCain knows this program was started long before Obama put his hat in the ring. McCain is going for the sound bite that dominates the cable news cycle, just like he did all campaign. Obama rises above it, parries the petty attack, and talks long term about deeper issues. Just like HE did all campaign. If future historians want to show why Obama won in 30 seconds or less, they would do worse than this clip.
And that errant gray hair arching over McCain's face just accentuates his already obvious decent into agree old white man.
I feel you T-N but I, like you, live in NYC. And given the history of the nypd shooting Black men for little cause; given the history of the Black folks being depicted like monkeys/apes/what-have-you; given the fact that Obama claimed ownership over the stimulus, I don't see how any other interprestation carries nearly as much weight given the multile layers of context for that cartoon.
I take offense. Black president or not.
When them cartoons caused so much fuss over in the Netherlands we said, "lookit those crazy people going nuts over a cartoon. They don't respect freedom of speech and they don't understand irony."
If I had anything to say about Obama's "cool" it's that he acts as if his blackness means less than his sense of irony, more often than not. Since everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Al Sharpton expects blackness to be an automatic yellow-card this is about the ultimate power-move in politics.
That is Obama as his best. Watched it 10 times at least. Obama was aggressive --he really pushed McCain buttons by calling him and praised him. He used humor and understated, I-am-not-taking-note-of-your-petty-attack language and all that, but he stuck a knife in McCain and they both know it.
Less publicized is when after that he called Cantor and Cantor babbled platitudes obviously afraid of confronting Mr. Cool. It was pretty good.
Pres. Obama has a vision for his administration that goes beyond today or tomorrow. He exhibits what is known as a "nonanxious presence." That means he keeps his emotions in check, responds to questions instead of reacting to them, uses his brain rather than his emotions to engage people and issues, and does not make himself the primary topic. It is the very definition of leadership.
Using this approach will change interactions in Washington. People who want an emotional reaction but get a thoughtful response will eventually have to engage their own brains if they want to communicate effectively with the President. That so many people haven't figured that out yet demonstrates how sharp he is and how dull they are.
Ima go out on a limb here and say that black folks haven't gotten used to being the HNIC just yet. Alot of black leaders have risen up and gone a long way...sharpton, jessie etc. But they've often grappled with problems from a perspective of being on the outside looking in. Obama along with other leaders in the private and public sector are experiencing what it feels like to be in charge. Not to say, there haven't been folks who've been in charge before, but this high, this fast, this way? Hardly. Now before i start massaging the ego's of white americans, there's alot to be said about what obama must adress still...the holder speech, if it had been made by obama, and therefore also, in the maner of obama, would have been more powerful, and been given more weight. This is the burden of being in charge, he's trying to solve, so many different things, in a limited amount of time, with a limited amount of resources, and he's still accountable (according to the MSM) to people like Mccain. The fact that he can adress Mccain in this masterful and almost condecending way is important, because it plays into the general idea of being in charge, he's the pres, not a civil-rights leader. I saw a bit of lebron in him...the way he looked at mccain, was almost like, "im fresh out of high school, you're a vet...im still dunking on your ass...and u can't do isht about it". The Cantor line is just pure political gamesmanship. He'll string that guy along, and eventually give him enough rope to hang himself.
rikyrah - I read TNC's "serious lesson" comment as being one for the political realm where some serious strategy is called for on a complex terrain. Seems like more of a "choose your battles" thing than an admonition that righteous anger or brutal honesty is never in order. My words to you as a blogger would be "Go ahead on!"
I wouldn't want the President, nor every prominent black person in the USofA, to spend a week getting exercised over, say, the Post cartoon, but things would be a pretty screwed up if nobody had made noise about Murdoch's stupid shit. I'm assuming that if a leftwing cartoonist had captioned "Now we've got to find someone else to run the Iraq war!" in connection with an image of a crazed monkey being shot, more than a few of the pro-Bush bloggers would have taken this as a depiction of their Prez and furiously attacked the source. If anyone questioned the assumption, the notion that Bush had been previously been portrayed as a chimp in satirical cartoons would have more than sufficed as proof of the cartoonist's evil intent. Jonah Goldberg would consider it an open-and-shut case, liberal fascism, etc. etc. - but the he acts uncomprehending and befuddled by the current protests.
Taking Offense as you describe it is generational. I do not think anyone white has ever walked up to you and said nigger get off the sidewalk. You probably received all the soft things like programs away from writing to say being a fireman. As a consequence you do not recognize the verbal dog whistles John McCain and his ilk, older and younger, use as out and out racism. It doesn't resonate because racism presented itself with a clean look.
It's the case when you reduce the content of the cartoon to cartoon and yet you are concerned about politcs on the spending bill as something totake offense on. The "content" was an "primate"(wild animal) shot dead by police. These were both verbal and visual images you probaly didn't see(Try and find the three stooges films; a ton have been buried because of their ethnic and racial stereotyping). If you had seen them experienced I doubt it would be meh to you.
It is not a growth to recognize that the Republicans are playing politics at the expense of their consititutincy. Their whole consitutency suffers regards of race if they don't take the money. That kind of hatred towards the entirety of their consitutency should be denounced but it is not to be used as a substitute for attacking racism.
Ignore this at your own peril. You will find the Atlantic loves you for bringing in a "younger crowd' willing to spend its money on products advertised in the Atlantic. This position does not absolve you from recognizing ignorance and actions based on ignorance. If you fail to understand this you end up having this conversation(Don Masters-Godfrey Cambridge- in the President's Analyst.
Don Masters, CEA Agent: I was five. And I knew there were colored people and white people. But then Mama took me to school, and it was almost all white kids. And nothing much happened on the first day. But on the second day, I was walking to school alone - my big brother, he was already in the third grade, and when you got a kid brother in kindergarten it can be kind of an embarrassment. So he ran on ahead to be with his buddies. Anyhow, there was a group of white kids on the street up ahead, and as I came up they started laughing and running and yelling, "Run! Run! Here comes the nigger! Run, run!"
[softly:]
Don Masters, CEA Agent: Here comes the nigger. And I looked around, and I didn't see any niggers. But if they wanted to play, so did I. So I started laughing and running and yelling, "Run, run! Here comes the nigger!"
[Whispered:]
Don Masters, CEA Agent: Run, run. Here comes the nigger. Suddenly there was my big brother. And I ran up to him, and I started yelling, "Run, run, here comes the nigger!" And he hit me. Then he did something worse - he told me what a nigger was.
Why is anyone surprised by McCain's actions? I never liked the man because I could always tell that he was blatantly opportunistic. He was only "bipartisan" because it suited him well and made him friends within the press that he thought he would need down the road.
McCain felt that the Presidency was owed to him as did his daughter who has been going around making snide remarks after the election. Anyone recall Kerry's daughters or Gore's kids doing this?
The ego of the McCain & co is pathetic and I'm glad that we have a cool president who will keep him in check.
First of all, I agree with both McCain and Obama that defense procurements are among the most costly boondoggles foisted upon the American taxpayer. I hope they scrap Star Wars (good luck, I know), the most costly and simultaneously useless government spending program in our history.
McCain revealed his wrong end of the telescope view of government spending during the campaign. He's not only petty in his personal relations, he's petty in his view which consistently lacks value. Pennywise, pound foolish John McCain.
However, I think that it is to Obama's credit that he is trying to harness McCain in the service of the nation. When W. was reelected if he had put the same hand out to John Kerry and offered to utilize Kerry's expertise in following the money to uncover international terrorist networks, he might have gone a long way to forestall the obvious alienation his administration had created in a large section of the population (all of us on the left basically) and done a service for the nation as a whole.
The Republicans, John McCain, appear like the Sour Grapes Party in their approach to Obama, whereas, those of us on the left have been vindicated at every turn by our displeasure with former President Bush. You would think the GOP so desirous of political power would be hip to this, but they are not.
Because my point is generational i submit as you tube Hopefully as a member of my generation I did this correctly:
"gotta keep climbing that stair"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnvWH85gaMk
PS Can I embed in a post to you?
One more thing - this is a reminder of how screwed we would be if this dick McCain had won. It's not "PC" to say this but he's a very small, petty man. Not "Presidential" at all. As bad as Bush really. Anytime one has an impulse to "rehabilitate" McCain as some sort of "straight-talker" or "maverick", remind yourself that his first choice for Treasury Secretary was Phil Gramm, and when Gramm imploded the #2 favorite was John Thain. McCain is a total fraud - a narcissistic, mean little man who more often than not doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
@brucds
i echo that sentiment...my alarm clocks went off when he labeled the UFC as "human cockfighting"...wow, just the asinine approach to what he percieves as "populism" scares the buuuuuuhjeeezus out of me...that and the bom-bom-bom bom-bom iran song....
Nope. Can't embed.
Also, respectfully, my mission here at the Atlantic is a little off-topic. Please send me an e-mail. I'd love to talk about it.
I have had the same experience that rikyrah speaks of more than once. Several times with the cops and a couple of times with coworkers. I remember a time when a white guy who i was generally cool with was in a break room with a bunch of other white guys. I was off in the cut chilling and nobody noticed me. So they were talking about our black security guard and then this one guy referred to him as a monkey and you should have heard them erupt into laughter. So then I said "what did you say?" And the whole place gets stone silent. But because I am on my job I pretty much had to let it ride. And I have plenty of other stories that mirror that one.
On the other hand I am loathe to jump on every "that's racist" bandwagon because I think it turns into the boy that cried wolf syndrome. People get so desensitized that when a real and blatant act of racism occurs nobody is all that moved. At least nobody who could potentially do anything about it. My point is this, there really are people in this country who believe that racism no longer exists or if it does its in the far corners of bumfuckiya. And most of those people unsurprisingy are white. But the truth is quite a few of us see it on a regular basis whether we have the opportunity to call it out or not.
So like I said before its a fine line because if you stop EVER calling out situations that might be racial you run the risk of feeding the lie that its a thing of the past. Now understand that President Obama has a different role than the rest of us. He wouldn't have had a chance in hell of getting elected if he was bumping Public Enemy in the background of every speech and really thats not who he is anyway. But people on the grind every day have a different lane and sometimes it appropriate to tap into your inner Chuck D.
Good observation about O and what he does and does not take offense at. I had a very similar reaction to you about the Post cartoon and the Holder mini flap. The same old folks, taking umbrage or defending their stupidity/racism/opportunism in the same old ways. I just found the whole thing so tiresome. I mean, I know we're not post-racial, but it really is time to move the conversation forward. This kind of umbrage-based politics (from all sides) just feels kind of bogus an over.
Yeah, Obama takes the Jay-z approach to McCain's sour grapes: "I'm not lookin at you dudes, I'm lookin past you." I saw this yesterday and felt the same way. He makes a jokes about it and dismisses it without being patronizing or turning it into an issue. This is the same way he deflected criticism at rallies and press conferences all throughout the campaign. Pitch-perfect delivery that few, if any, other politicians can match. I'm not sure we all have to constantly be so deliberate about the battles we choose, but it's sure handy if our leaders have that capacity.
Personally, I wasn’t offended by the cartoon. But that’s more an issue of me being kind of difficult to offend more than it is that I didn’t see what others saw. I did. And from the start. Even without the snark about the stimulus bill, I saw it. I mean, it’s two cops shooting an unarmed ape. I’m not sure if a cartoon carrying that image (current events notwithstanding) can be made in which there isn’t some level of racial undertone. Intent aside, that people who work in a brand of journalism that relies so heavily on allowing images to tell a story could be so oblivious to the loaded content of the imagery they produce is what I find to be the most offensive part of this. I don’t believe, as I heard somebody on some show say the other day, that you have to be dumb not to get that this thing is racist, or even that it could be perceived to be racially insensitive. But that sort of lack of awareness does make you a bad editor and a terrible artist/cartoonist.
That is Obama as his best. Watched it 10 times at least. Obama was aggressive --he really pushed McCain buttons by calling him and praised him. He used humor and understated, I-am-not-taking-note-of-your-petty-attack language and all that, but he stuck a knife in McCain and they both know it.
I wouldn't call that sticking a knife, exactly. It's more of a yanking on the dog's choke chain and reminding them to heel.
The whole format was more or less an exercise in dominance. "I'm giving you free air time to take your best shot at me, but I get to respond. Go ahead, swing away! Ok, nice shot! Here's your cookie. Anybody else?" There's no other way to say it, McCain was pwned.
"That is Obama as his best. Watched it 10 times at least. Obama was aggressive --he really pushed McCain buttons by calling him and praised him. He used humor and understated, I-am-not-taking-note-of-your-petty-attack language and all that, but he stuck a knife in McCain and they both know it."
"I wouldn't call that sticking a knife, exactly. It's more of a yanking on the dog's choke chain and reminding them to heel.
The whole format was more or less an exercise in dominance. "I'm giving you free air time to take your best shot at me, but I get to respond. Go ahead, swing away! Ok, nice shot! Here's your cookie. Anybody else?" There's no other way to say it, McCain was pwned."
I don't know Obama's mind, but my guess is that's exactly how he *doesn't* see what happened.
Doctor Jay with the nice finger roll-- I agree. In retrospect it's amazing the GOP didn't get what this was-- a symbolic establishment of hierarchy. The McCain thing was almost too perfect, as if he had agreed to play the bumbling old man bitching about his lawn so that Obama could say, "You're absolutely right, Mr. Wilson, but did you know about the new fertilizer that takes care of that problem? Tell you what, you go down to the hardware store and buy some for us and I'll let you and Mr. Levin apply it to everyone's lawn? Thank you so much, you really are a credit to our neighborhood. Next question? Yes, Mr. Cantor...you have a big, bad question? Come on, try it out in front of all of us...Oh well, maybe you can man up next time"
Rope-a-dope, in every sense of the phrase.
One of the most frustrating things about the "postracial" meme is that not only does it whitewashes any realistic discussion of race and race relations as they are evolving (it's a neocon way of looking at things like the concept of the "end of history,"), but it oversimplifies the complexity of real experience.
I grew up in a Jewish home in which every member of the family was expected to vociferously express his or her opinion at the dinner table. A kid of six was expected to hold his own in a heated argument in which more than one voice spoke at one time and often raised their voice. If that six year old was unable to do so, he would have his health inquired about. I can remember being on the job and being brought before some supervisors (white and from the middle west) and told that in my professorial discourse I ought to hold my voice down. Ah yes, put on my Clark Kent mild mannered reporter suit.
What both Rikyah and TN are saying is all of a part of our experience. On one hand a lot of ethnic and racial noise isn't worth responding to; on the other we live in a nation that would continously be insensitive to the amount of prejudiced noise with which it indulges, and by that I do not mean the exaggerated joking we have among friends.
But I would like to say that I think while Obama certainly contends with being black in a still white dominated world, he is also someone who really does have two things going for him. The first is that he is comfortable in a world of diversity and politics; his life experience is such that he, himself, does not feel like an outlier. And secondly, he is exceedingly skilled in playing the game. He has an outside game--he can make 3s and not just from the baseline; he can take it to the hoop with clowns like McCain on his hip; he knows how to play d. This combo of sincerity and sagacity, everyone can learn from, and especially all of us who have been pegged as outliers all our lives.
I understand that Obama contains a special interest for blacks, and he should provide a special interest for the entire nation as well, for unless we become a nation of serious players, we will become a nation of serious losers as a result.
I'm of two minds about the cartoon. I understand why some people who took visceral offense did, but I can't help but wonder when these and similar contrivances will cease to provoke outrage and indignation.
Putting aside the fact that the cartoon wasn't funny, the 'blacks as monkeys' shtick is played out. No reasonable person really believes that black people are monkeys, and the notion that blacks are sub-human or inferior (the point of the comparison) doesn't square with reality.
People are grasping at straws to legitimise their outrage. Julian Bond would have people believe that the cartoon was an invitation to assassinate President Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_VpFw9AvZ0
And, of course, anyone who can't see that can't see. Really?
We'll see what happens in the next two years. If the economy is still shit, Obama is going to be in trouble no matter what color he is.
Hey TNC,
I remember my first time at Abyssinian i found the White People at the top strange too. most of them are tourists, however, visiting the church through a "see a black church" part of their travel itinerary. Butts has spoken on this topic in various Sundays, and has to balance making sure the church members are seated versus just the curious onlookers who showed up early. sometimes it gets a little dicey because non-black members are confused with tourists by the ushers, but usually it works out just fine. Easter Sunday will be an ordeal.
P.S.>> What part of Harlem do you live?
You know, there's a part of me that understands the point you are making here. And I think that same part of me even agrees.
But then the larger part of me wants to add a new dimension - are we missing the point of all of this by focusin on the tenor of outrage instead of the reality that people may have legitimate criticisms of the way they are represented (be it inadvertent). Or more simply stated, I don't think the only other option to "outrage" is "not caring". There are a lot of other responses that one, or the the nation as a whole, could have.
I guess what I want to say is I'm not sure I agree with this notion that racism (even if its inadvertent) shouldn't outrage us, or at the very least, ask of us to speak up and make the point louder that racism isn't always intentional. We need to change the conversation about racism so that people begin to understand that sometimes you do stuff that is racist or offensive and you don't realize that it is racist or offensive until someone points it out. I think that does require black people to not outright say white people are evil, can't learn or change, and we are always and only victims. But it also requires white people not to use black outrage as a way to not deal with underlying beliefs they have that don't necessarily make them bad people but do, if unchecked, perpetuate inequality and the perception that non-whites are inferior.
Underlying arguments like yours and others who tell black folks to stop complaining (or complain less) is this assumption that racism is only "i hate you nigger" and not a deeper set of beliefs and assumptions about the world that manifest in overt and covert ways.
I'm not sure creating a false choice between being mad at offensive imagery and economic issues is right. I would argue that both are important but require specific, targeted responses that, depending on the circumstance, could be quite different.
Just because some black people such as yourself don't get upset doesn't mean behavior like what we see from the Post or even the New Yorker isn't dangerous, or offensive, or even racist. It might mean that the silencing effect white backlash at black complaint and frustration has is actually working.
Obama is such a political genius. He made John McCain look so small. He's basically forcing the GOP to either work with him in good faith or be viewed as petty, ideological obstructionists. Given the new poll results showing 65ish% support Obama on the economy vs. 30ish% for GOP, these are really their only two options. The combo of Obama's genius and their own utter lack of fiscal credibility put them in this position.
On the other hand, Obama does have a way of addressing people that can seem patronizing. The buttering up of McCain before he asked the question was a little over the top and had me thinking in the back of my head "asshole, just call on him and let it be obvious that because you're calling on him first it's clear that you respect his opinion."
Really? I didn't think McCain even looked like he had his heart in it. To me it seemed totally different from his campaign performances (i.e. lose a war to win a campaign, my friends). It looked like he knew he was a bit player in Obama's story and he half-heartedly delivered his lines. "Aaaargghh, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility...mmmph!"
To keep to the off topic conversation-- I find the whole monkey cartoon controversy a bit bizarre. My interpretation of the cartoon (as a white guy) was to link the monkey with the "monkeys banging on typrewriters" trope and to say the stimulous bill was that bad. The cartoon was stupid and not funny. I certianly get that if you think the monkey was Obama, that it's damn offensive, and that it's sometthing right out of a racist cartoon from the jim crowe south, but do people really think that's what was meant? There's still a lot of racism, but in the northeast at least white people don't express their racist angst by comparing minorities to monkeys in major newspapers. So, even if you accept that the cartoon was in poor taste, and that the editors should have damn well known that some people would be deeply offended, this seems like it is about the last issue that anyone should be having big protests over and getting too worked up about. But I haven't been the victim of the bs racism my whole life, so I may feel differently if I were.
I'm not trying to troll with this comment, and I do get that many people were deeply offended by the cartoon, but I think that it always helps to take a step back and see what was really intended.
I think the reaction they got is exactly what the NY Post intended. Whether or not that cartoon was written with a racist intent is nearly a moot point, I think. The artist and the editor knew EXACTLY how it was going to be interpreted.
Ouch indeed. Deleted.
Justin,
OK then where were the typewriters?
Why the shooting of the monkey?
"in the northeast at least white people don't express their racist angst by comparing minorities to monkeys in major newspapers"
Oh really? Where is that rule written down? Is there anything expressly forbidding them from doing so aside from your incredulity such a thing could ever happen?
Whether or not it deserved to be a rallying cry for activists is one question; whether or not it was in poor taste and offensive, another. Me, any cartoonist advocating the shooting of a standing US politician, Black Monkey or otherwise, is offensive and indefensible.
Watching McCain there it was pretty easy to imagine him calling his wife a trollop and a cunt with that cheesy shit eating grin.
I'm agreeing a lot with Tyler.
My reaction -if I got to give any feedback to the cartoonist or the Post- would not be "I'm offended" but "that is so completely inappropriate". I don't think you have to work up a particular feeling of umbrage or outrage to make judgements about what is and isn't okay.
I work with a lot of racist, sexist white men, and a lot of what THEY take offense to, in their defensive reaction to the offense of women and minorities who they might offend- is the idea that they should feel a certain way. And I don't think they do need to feel a certain way. A person can stand up for appropriate behavior and condemn racist & other offensive talk without feeling personally hurt by it. You can say "that's a completely inappropriate (or unprofessional, or unacceptable) thing to say". Or "dude. you see that line? In your rearview mirror?"
There are cultural norms in this country, as diverse as we are, and more specific ones in the press, and reminding people of, and enforcing, those cultural norms, doesn't have to be something we get worked up over. Like if someone starts eating with their hands in a fancy restaurant, you can say something about how it's not done like that here, without being shocked, shocked! that they would do such a thing. I know eating with your hands is a trivial transgression, and doesn't actually hurt anyone, unlike racism, but my point is just that getting other people to behave differently doesn't have to take a particular form, or require a particular emotion.
A good example of that, I think, was Obama's comments about family being off limits, when Palin's children started being the news. He didn't take umbrage at anyone's insinuations about Bristol, or Trig- he just said "family is off-limits". Hey, don't do that. Not cool. Don't go there. All ways of enforcing a limit without being (or appearing) personally wounded.
Unfortunately, a political leader saying "that was completely inappropriate" doesn't get as much press as when they say "that was offensive and I demand, demand! and apology!". I certainly hope Obama inspires other politicians and leaders to realize that one can, in fact, succeed politically without being craven to the news cycle.
Underlying arguments like yours ... is this assumption that racism is only "i hate you nigger" and not a deeper set of beliefs and assumptions about the world that manifest in overt and covert ways.
One of the great things about current diversity teaching is the concentration on unconscious bias (racial and otherwise) and the concept of micro-inequities, racial and otherwise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microinequities). It's the kind of diversity training that is probably most common in a white collar (pardon the pun) professional environment, like corporations and law firms.
It speaks to the issue of covert, subtle prejudice that is still embedded in our culture and also solves the "white folks/men don't even realize they're doing this and it's happening all the time, and I bite my tongue and don't bring it up but they should stop doing it, even though they don't know they're doing it and I'm not telling them but they should just figure it out even though they never notice it" Catch-22 tail-chasing of racial/gender dialogue.
The unemployed don't really pay taxes do they? And wasn't the refusal to embrace the unemployment benefit hike based on 1) fears that it will distort incentives to stay employed or return to work and 2) the fact that it's only funded for a limited period?
I just noticed that in order to post this comment i had to accede to the following: "By using this service [I] agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable".
That's a pretty low bar, and ironic given the nature of your post.
I didn't really have to deal with people, en masse, who weren't black until I was in my 20s. Chalk it up to that, I guess. Also, I've never worked a corporate job for any long period of time. Maybe that's part of it.
Maybe that is part of it.
>Ouch indeed. Deleted.
The fact that are incompetent and dishonest hardly has any serious downside for me.
There's still a lot of racism, but in the northeast at least white people don't express their racist angst by comparing minorities to monkeys in major newspapers.
White people don't. White journalists do.
Look, everything in the world -- from countries to races to ethnic groups to professions -- has its own culture and history. The history of editorial cartoons is chock-full of using simian imagery to indicate "inferiority" of an undesirable group, of which Africans and their descendants are just one example. Here are some others for your edification:
Irish:
http://my.loudclick.net/Sites/3890/WWW/assets/images/IrishMonkey.bmp
Japanese:
http://w00.middlebury.edu/ID085A/gallery/film/giant.jpg
Maybe the Average White Guy isn't aware of this history. But the Average White Cartoonist and the Average White Editor sure as fuck are. The Post knew EXACTLY what it was doing when it published that image.
I wouldn't call that sticking a knife, exactly. It's more of a yanking on the dog's choke chain and reminding them to heel.
The whole format was more or less an exercise in dominance.
Exactly, Doctor Jay. I saw it that way but wasn't that precise expressing it.
And oh, the finger rolling.
Garbage like that cartoon will stop when enough white people who have sense personally engage enough white people who don't: the ignorant jackasses, the willful bigots, and all the nuanced varieties in between.
I respect all the varied efforts to define a constructive black response above, but you tell them to stop, they can brag about resisting you once you leave the room, and if you don't, they can claim that you didn't mind.
It's got to come from people they think of as their own, folks close enough that they're effectively always in the room. It's our mess to clean up, and I'm embarrassed that it isn't done.
"The unemployed don't really pay taxes do they?"
You really should research Unemployment Insurance. To be eligible you have to have been a worker, and the sort of worker who paid payroll taxes. Unemployment isn't just a benefit that all people have. It's money that people who work full time pay into the system, in the form of taxes. It is closer to savings than it is to a hand-out.
I agree that the Post cartoon was very insensitive. However, I think it was more an offense of "not thinking about or recognizing something that could offend people," rather than "purposely associating a black man with a racist stereotype." In other words, while I think the Post is at fault for being so pathetically clueless, I also think that the opposition to the cartoon should also recognize that the cartoonist probably WAS clueless; in other words, even if he IS a racist, it's difficult to imagine that he and the paper would be so stupid as to run something with such negative connotations if those connotations were what they truly believe. I think that the Post should apologize for its insensitivity. But I also think people upset about the cartoon should, in turn, recognize that it was probably mostly an unintentionally stupid comic, and withhold excessive ire toward someone who likely didn't consider the racist connotations.
McCain looked a little unnerved. He's thin skinned, I think the campaign revealed...in contrast to Obama's Iceman cometh.
Must have been hard for him to hear Obama address him as "John" while he must respond with, "Mr. President."
Meh.
Count me as one of those white guys that saw the cartoon and didn't instantly think "GWAARRR! RACISM!!!"
It seems that a lot of people here came up with the formula:
Obama = Monkey -> Racism
Which is perfetly reasonable, if you identify the chimp as Obama. I, on the other hand, came up with:
Congress = Monkeys -> Idiots
Which is also a perfectly reasonable reading of the cartoon, if you ask me. It is also, I imagine, that the cartoonist was aiming for, though you may accuse me of projection. The point is the cartoon is not definitely racist, only postentially so. (the probability ascribed, not suprisingly, linked to the life experience of the viewer).
None of this lets the cartoonist or the paper off the hook, mind you. They certainly should have known the history of smilar images depicting blacks as primates, and the high probability of of such an image being interpreted as racist and deply offensive, and therefore not made/run the cartoon. Kind of reminds me of that southern mayor (I think... some sort of politician anyway) who used "niggardly" in a speech he gave. Perfectly legitimate word, but the guy was a total dumbass for using it when it was damn well obvious what the consequences for using it would be. Anyone who can't see that using "niggardly" in a speech is a bad idea doesn't belong in politics. The paper had a responsibility to its readers which it failed to uphold. Unlike zacksback, I don't think that failure was intentional, but it was still a failure.
Or, in other words, if your *best* case scenario for interpretation of your statement is "enormously ignroant and/or insenitive", then that probably should consider a different course of action...
Ta-Neishi:
Man, you hit the issue spot on (for me!). I don't read the Post, so I could care less what garbage that spews from that crappy paper. I think that very often, we black folks get wrapped up in stepping over dollars to pick up pennies.
Instead of arguing for the editors of the Post to be fired, I wish the NAACP would spend their time (and demonstrate some relevance) by ensuring that some of country's most delapidated (sp?) and underfunded schools (which are likely attended by low income students of color) get at least their fair share of the stimilus money for new construction, better teachers, etc...To me, that is more important than arguing about a cartoon in some irrelevant tabloid that doesn't care about me anyway. Just my opinion...
I like how Michael puts it: "I think that very often, we black folks get wrapped up in stepping over dollars to pick up pennies."
I also agree with his point about the NAACP. In Philadelphia some weeks ago, the local chapter accused CVS of redlining. There was a press conference. The chapter head and those standing next to him looked like they belonged in a African-American history museum display for the uppity black man.
I should modify "ignorant jackasses."
There are white people clueless enough to understand that their idiot humor is identical in content to racist humor. That only makes them ignorant.
The jackass part isn't proven until they are handed good information on what other people are guaranteed to see and respond by saying that other perception is something they're allowed to ignore. At that point, they're taking pride in having done harm.
Amazingly, Rupert Murdoch has me believing that, on this particular issue, he personally may have merely been ignorant.
Extremely well said, Mr. Coates. Bravo.
Irony lives. The "chimp" cartoon presents us with a situation in which you are actually penalized for knowing the facts.
If you know that Congress and not Obama wrote the stimulus bill, and further know that many of its provisions had been on the Dems' Wish List while Obama was still in college, then you know that the chimp in the picture was intended to represent Congress, not Obama.
On the other hand, if you think that somehow Obama sat down and "wrote" the stimulus bill, perhaps in a series of all-nighters while assembling his Cabinet and attending Inaugural Balls, then you might think the chimp was meant to be Obama. You get to have your outrage. But it's based on a misunderstanding of who wrote, or threw together, this bill.
Besides, does anyone not out to score partisan points really think that in this day and age, a large urban newspaper would knowingly and intentionally depict the first black President of the United States as a gunned-down chimp? This is New York 2009, not Birmingham 1955.
I think it is perfectly appropriate to be offended or experience umbrage over a cartoon; the medium is not what matters. I don't think there should be limits of umbrage because this cartoon was published in a well-known newspaper that runs copies nationwide and has a large circulation, and running a cartoon in something widespread as a popular newspaper means that the artist meant it to be seen. People have every right to be angry over something like that. Things are slightly different for Obama because he has a public image to maintain, and that image, as the article says, is composed, cool and unflappable and for him to be flapped by this would reflect poorly on his ability to deal with racial criticism. I think the question of whether or not the monkey is actually meant to be Obama is interesting, because sometimes people are willing to interpret things a certain way just to express outrage. If it is, however, then it is an apt sign of race relations, if the continuing New Orleans situation is any indicator.