Conservatives and Race
I've written about this before, but it's worth repeating again in the context of Gatesgate and this new poster making the rounds in the blogosphere that has Obama gussied up like Heath Ledger's joker.
I'll leave the whole Gates incident aside for the moment and speak just a little bit about the Obama-as-Joker poster. At a conservative blog I frequent to keep my pulse on what is riling the conservative blogosphere and punditocracy, I made a passing comment on this Obama-as-Joker poster that has stirred up all kinds of vitriol and animosity towards me. I think I was point-blank called a racist about a half dozen times, and sometimes for nothing more than being a liberal Democrat.
What did I say to get conservatives in such a tizzy? Well, in response to this conservative blogger's efforts to spread the poster out to the far corners of the country to undermine Obama as President, I wrote: "A black man in whiteface. Yeah, that'll do it. Just keep at it folks."
When the other commenters predictably started frothing at the mouth calling me a racist, I felt the need to explain that recognizing that this poster might stir up racial resentments linked to the history of race and the practice of black/white facepainting in an effort to demean another human being might not be the best way for conservatives to go about criticizing Obama. And then this discussion progressed, again, to the meaning of race in America. Of course, I argued, as I usually do, that race has meaning to cultural identity and that there's nothing wrong with that as long as that meaning isn't one that seeks to justify discrimination, oppression, and civil rights violations. But, many conservatives, whether through having become so gun-shy about being labeled racist, simply can't seem to recognize that race has meaning to cultural identity, even when they acknowledge such a thing implicitly. For instance, when conservatives speak about the "black" church and its alignment with conservative values on such social issues as gay marriage and the morality of homosexuality are ascribing some meaning to black identity that is distinct from that of other racial or ethnic communities.
For my part, I am readily willing to acknowledge that there is such a thing as black identity and that there is nothing inherently wrong with this. However, conservatives always pretend towards color-blindness and claim that race has no meaning at all in the public square. I think this is simply absurd. They simply cannot seem to grasp that discrimination in social policy on the basis of race is distinct from a shared racial cultural identity. The former is racism, the latter is simply a cultural identity marker much like gender, language, sexual orientation, regional association (i.e. Southern), religion, etc., are. For instance, as a Catholic, I can travel across the world and feel some kind of solidarity and companionship with other Catholics simply because we share this common identity and all that it means. There is nothing wrong or out of the ordinary in that. And so to suggest that the Obama-as-Joker poster, which paints a black man in whiteface, might have ramifications based on the history of race in this country, is nothing more than acknowledging that race has meaning in this country. But when conservatives can only respond to this suggestion with the claim that anyone who says as much is a racist, then I think it is fair to say that conservatives have become the race-obsessed people hurling charges of racism at the drop of a hat, people that they claim to detest, instead of the color-blind people that they would fashion themselves as being. But maybe I'm missing something myself in this whole subject; so if you have some thoughts on this, please enlighten me.
Posts
9 comments:
You and I have gone round and round on this one, and I don't really have anything new to add to the discussion on race. But as far as the Obama Joker thing goes, I just don't think the majority of people will see that as a racist dig, because the cultural relevance of The Joker is much more recent and topical.
To anybody who does think it is a dig on Obama's race, I wouldn't call them racist so much as I'd call them culturally illiterate.
I think there is a legitimate beef to be had with the image in that it disrespects the office of the President in a way that Republicans complained about when similar things were done to Bush's image, and I'd actually be sympathetic to arguments against it on those grounds... but anybody who gets upset about it on racial grounds is not likely to be somebody reasonable enough for me to worry about their vote anyway.
We have gone round and round, so no need for you and I to rehash those arguments again. But let me reply to this: "To anybody who does think it is a dig on Obama's race, I wouldn't call them racist so much as I'd call them culturally illiterate."
Why do you fashion this as a stark either/or thing? Isn't it possible for someone to recognize the cultural reference to the Joker, but also notice that wrapped in this cultural reference could be something that reminds people of something else?
It is not absurd for anyone to make the connection of a black man, being mocked through a cultural reference that only works if the face is painted white, as potentially explosive in the history of race in this country.
It IS significant that Obama is the first black President -- so, for better or for worse, right or wrong, everything he does and says (witness his response to Gatesgate), and everything done and said about him, is going to be seen through the lens of race. Conservatives as well as liberals as well as independents fall into this very natural and understandable pattern of behavior. And why? Because people know that his race matters.
I wouldn't say that the Obama-as-Joker poster is a dig against his race; but I do think that it can, and will, conjure up all the historical baggage that comes with a black man presented in white face with the purpose to demean him. And the reason why this is so is because we have a history of painting black men in white face or white men in black face to demean the dignity of people. If the poster was of Obama painted green to represent some other pop culture villain, this wouldn't even be an issue.
People can get upset about whatever they want, but I'm not going to worry too much about people taking offense at "conjured up" historical baggage as a result of taking something out of context. That's not to say that some people won't get upset about it in that way, but just to say if they do, they are looking for things to get upset about, and I'd hate to stand in their way!
And since Obama is half white, doesn't that mean those people should only be half as offended? If I can't lay claim to mine and Obama's shared ethnic heritage out of fear of what black people might think about it, does that mean I am being racially opressed? ;-)
That's not to say that some people won't get upset about it in that way, but just to say if they do, they are looking for things to get upset about, and I'd hate to stand in their way!
Heh! You have a point. But I'd say that pretty much about sums up just about every conservative opponent of Obama, too. Looking for things to get upset about! Obama says he believes a police officer acted stupidly (I happen to agree with Obama's assessment, by the way, though I also think Gates acted stupidly, too), and conservatives scream racism because the officer happened to be white and Gates was black. It all points to the relevance of race. But that's neither here nor there. I wonder if you think that there are, indeed, legitimate things to get upset about that can be rooted in history? And whether or not we should be circumspect about such things. The Wild West certainly had it's non-racial use of hanging as a method of frontier justice and punishment, but I, for one, wouldn't seek to use the hanging noose of the wild west as a symbol for crimefighting (as some yahoo public official did recently in these parts), given hanging's association with racial lynchings. Sometimes, no matter how funny the joke and no matter the innocent intentions, we just shouldn't go certain places.
"I wonder if you think that there are, indeed, legitimate things to get upset about that can be rooted in history?"
Certainly there are, but the point in this case is that they be taken in context. Likewise, I think if a hangman's noose is meant to be used as a symbol for crimefighting, it is silly to treat it as something else.
For instance, there are a lot of small rural Native American communities around Oklahoma, and I've noticed that in many of them there are barber shops that go by the name, "The Scalping Station" or "Get Scalped" or something similar. I'm sure there are plenty of white people who see such names and get offended, but they're being silly too!
Also, Huck, I couldn't agree more that many consevatives are looking for things to get upset about in regards to Obama, just like many liberals did with Bush. (I'd make a comment here about political leaders giving their opponents enough rope to hang themselves with, but that might too racially charged).
Perhaps it is just human nature.
I get what you are saying, Eric. And sure there is truth to what you are saying about people being overly sensitive about things when they probably needn't be. But that just underlines the fact that there are things that people do get sensitive about. And if conservatives want to tout a demeaning image of Obama in whiteface as as the Joker, I wouldn't call them racist for doing so. And perhaps it is a fair criticism that those who are offended by the poster for the reasons I outline need to grow a thicker skin. But I don't see why conservatives wouldn't want to be a bit more sensitive on this point. I've heard my fair share of off-color jokes, even ones I personally find harmless and funny; but if I thought such a joke might not be well received by a particular group of people because of its off-color nature, then a prudent course of action would be simply for me not to proclaim this joke with gusto at every coctail party I attended.
I know that people chafe at the idea of having to police what they say or do for fear of saying or doing something politically incorrect and possibly offending someone else; but what's the harm in trying to take care not to offend someone else? If conservatives want to gleefully promote Obama-as-Joker, they should go right ahead. I just don't think it's going to help them overcome their reputation as being hostile to ethnic minorities. It's just a reality that any criticism of Obama will be put through this filter of race, and conservatives can care about this enough to think twice about their criticism or not. Their choice.
"I know that people chafe at the idea of having to police what they say or do for fear of saying or doing something politically incorrect and possibly offending someone else; but what's the harm in trying to take care not to offend someone else?"
Well, just about anything you say is potentially offensive to someobody, so this has to be measured out a bit... and it terms of The Joker not equating to racism, I think it is a fair measure. If they were doing Uncle Remus skits, I'd feel differently about it. What I'm kind of surprised at is that you don't take more offense to real intent behind the poster.
"I just don't think it's going to help them overcome their reputation as being hostile to ethnic minorities."
And I agree to some extent, but to the crowd who find this racially offensive, I don't think conservatives can do much of anything to overcome that reputation. The day the GOP starts pandering to ethnic minorities over silly stuff like this is the day they truly start to lose their way in the race debate.
Well, I can't say that I like the poster, because I certainly disagree with what it's trying to convey. But if conservatives want to paint Obama as the evil socialist joke out to destroy the country, I've got no beef with that in the rough and tumble of politics. I think it's quite the overreach, if you ask me; and I really think fair-minded people won't find it all that funny. So, I'm all for Republicans shooting themselves in the foot with this poster.
As for pandering, why would simply trying to be sensitive constitute pandering? Is it pandering if I refrain from saying or doing something that I think might be offensive? I think of pandering as something else entirely. I think of it as consciously doing something positively to curry favor with a particular group of people, not refraining from doing something that I thought was impolitic or insensitive.
As losing their way in the race debate? The GOP has already lost its way. Many, many conservatives are viciously hurling the racist label at anyone and anything for any reason. I've been told by people who don't even know me that I am a racist simply because I voted for Obama. Some folks claim that to be a liberal is, by defintion, to be a racist. And Glenn Beck, a prominent conservative pundit, has called Obama a racist point-blank on national television. And don't get conservatives going on Sonia Sotomayor -- she's a racist, too. There is a strong and numerous faction on the right who have learned well from Al Sharpton and who cry racism at every turn. I don't know what you've been hearing when it comes to gratuitous race hustling from the right since the last Presidential campaign, but rest assured that the GOP and the conservative movement has abandoned the high road on race.
Post a Comment