gonzomax, would you please define "racism " such that your post, “The racism was not on purpose . But it was there anyway” makes sense?
In looking at these images, I’ve noticed one trait that every minstrel picture shows.
Is it bulging eyes? No.
Is it a giant smile? No.
Is it prominent teeth? No.
Every single one I’ve looked at, though, has something in common: the performer’s face is dark brown or black. That’s almost always through the use of black facepaint, even when the performer is black. But once in awhile it’s because the performer is naturally very dark-skinned. (Note that some of the linked images are to an older meaning of the word minstrel, i.e., a traveling musical entertainer; this is obviously not the meaning under discussion).
There’s another group of photos I can show you. These photos will feature two things, almost always:
- White pancake makeup; and
- Large, painted-on lips.
These images are images of clowns.
Is it coincidence that large lips and pancake makeup are common between minstrel images and clown images? I doubt it. Without any proof, I strongly suspect that the minstrel form is a subgenre of clowning that became popular in the nineteenth century, a genre that modified existing clown makeup for racist purposes.
There’s another, much smaller, subgenre of clown imagery: The Joker. This include the playing card, but more significantly it includes Batman’s arch nemesis. These clown images also have pancake makeup and lipstick.
Now, there’s a problem: you rarely see black clowns. But you even more rarely see (I’ve never seen) minstrels in whiteface. (In trying to find such a picture, the closest I could find was this picture of black boys in whiteface, clearly not a minstrel image).
So we’re given the image of Obama in white pancake makeup and lipstick. Is it a minstrel-type image? Indisputably no: minstrel images invariably involve dark skin, usually artificially darkened, and this image has white skin. Is it a generic clown image? Possibly, but probably not, given the third possibility: is it a Joker image?
It’s absolutely a Joker image.
Concluding that it’s a minstrel-type image is unreasonable. It would need to display dark skin in order to qualify.
Thank you for these sites. You’ve been mustering all types of lame defense, but it an effort to show you are right you went and scoured the internet and have come back with the best it has to offer. If you cannot see, through this exercise, how little bering your position has to a reasonable one, there is truly no hope. But let’s look at these sites, shall we?
The first is a blog penned by Tommy Christopher, who, after offering no rationale at all, simply chooses to arrive at this inescapable conclusion:
Oh really? No analysis. No rationale. It’s just “'tis a fact”. And the poster is “immediately” and “strongly” evocative of minstrel shows? Not even YOU have claimed that. But you’re wrong and this just makes him wronger.
And since you seem to think sites like this bolster your position and undercut mine, let’s be clear, I’ve never held that there aren’t imbeciles on the internet. And some of these imbeciles will choose to take the position you have.
But let’s look now at the piece of similar short-shrifted idiocy he included in his rant:
Let’s analyze this. First he says that the resemblance to Obama’s Hope illustration is “superficial”. That may be, especially since it was derived NOT form the illustrative poster, but from the TIME Magazine cover which was a photograph. So why wasn’t that the comparison weighed? I wonder. But let’s leave that aside and focus on the last sentence. What preceding it gives that last line any justification at all? If you said “absolutely none”, you’re right.
Let’s move on to devastating site #2. Here, you’ll have to show me how you think this bolsters your position. It mainly just talks about your first site. And I don’t even see it offering or supporting the imbecilic position put forth in the first one. So at least it has that going for it.
Your next claim is that Ron Paul “says the poster can be easily construed as racist”. There was no link. So I did a search with those words and found a link to the Paul website where a poster, Habit4ming, offers that opinion. Not Ron Paul as you say. But you probably knew that, or you would have included the link. Then again, if you knew what the other link did not say you probably wouldn’t have included that one, so who knows why you do what you do. ::shrugs::
On to link #3, the article by Kennicott. This is the most laughable of all three. Literally. I found myself laughing out loud as I read it. It’s filled with ridiculous leaps and tangential associations string together to resemble something like a reasonable position, but fails miserably. But maybe I’m wrong. so, why don’t you put forth the logic string that you think would lead one to reasonably hold the position that the poster is racist. Of course, you could just do a Google search and post everything you find with “Obama poster” and “racist” instead of finding a coherent, persuasive argument. My money is on you doing the former.
But let’s make this easier. This is unfair that you have to defend yourself against the throngs. I’ve put forth some specific reasons why I think your position is unreasonable. Along the way, I’ve asked you very specific questions and asked you to comment on certain specific lynchpins in the debate. You’ve chosen not to do so.
Why is that? Too hard to type with your fingers in your ears? Or you know that your position cannot be defended when examined?
But Homey more than makes up for the dearth.
Excellent analysis with the rest of your post. Will it penetrate? Not a chance.
Thanks. It occurs to me that there could be a racist clown subgenre in which black people wore whiteface, either to mock whites or to mock blacks. You could even have white people in some sort of double-race-changing facepaint (blackface underneath whiteface) that could do a mockery of black people thereby. That would be possible, sure. And the poster of Obama-as-Joker would probably look like that racist tradition.
But that tradition is different from the minstrel tradition in one key way: it doesn’t exist.
Your claim is that the poster is not and can not be racist. I gave you several sites showing people who thought it was. They had various personal reasons. You simply reject their reactions. You have no right to say whether the reaction a person has to a poster can be right or wrong. It is their response. They were offended by it. Whats your response. You can not be offended I have decided the poster is not racist. Well stand back. I keep forgetting that a person who has a response to a poster can have the wrong one ,if you deem it so. Sorry, but my immediate reaction to the poster was that someone made a mistake by making it. I thought they probably did not know some people would make a connection to black face and racism. But the fact remains that some people did. That is an indisputable fact. Some people reacted to the old time ,now obscure perhaps depictions of blacks back in the 20th century. But it was real
What debate are you pretending to have? You make declarations. You make rulings. That is not debate.
Sheeze. You really are something. You, by yourself, were proof that someone could have that reaction. I’ve acknowledged that a bunch of posts way back. That has been a given. The question is, even given YOU, and possibly the 99-year-old black man I mentioned way back, is it reasonable to characterize the poster as racist without the qualification of a specific person. Given ALL the reasons you’ve ignored from me, LHOD, and others, it is NOT reasonable. Given all the posters usually on your side of the aisle that disagree with you here, and given the body of comments people offered on the very cites you served up, it is both amazing and somewhat entertaining that you either will not or cannot see this. And since you’ve adamantly refused to answer what has been asked of you, I have to assume that it is stridently willful.
Now, reread what you just wrote above. How you can offer some explanation or defense at this point and not include the word “reasonable” is astounding. And not in a good way.
You know, you’re continued refusal to answer specific questions asked of you in this thread not only undermines your argument here, it doesn’t speak well of you as a participant on a debate board, period. But I guess it’s fair to say that that ship has sailed long ago.
By virtue of the fact that someone started a thread about whether the poster was racist, many people would have gotten a clue. It was apparent that there were people who had that reaction. That would tell somebody (not you) that there was something there. I told you that it was my reaction. Other poster also said they had that reaction. There are articles on the internets saying that still others had the same reaction. What is so difficult for you to grasp there? You pontificated that it was not racist and everybody who had that reaction was wrong? If that is debate in your brain, you can keep it.
Sigh. You have yet to demonstrate that your characterization is in any way reasonable. Even on the cites YOU provided, the posters commenting on those few articles (which reference each other, but the way) are near unanimous in ridiculing the articles. So, we’re left with you and a handful of others with racism in the fore of your brain, intent on seeing it whether it is there or not, in any reasonable interpretation.
And you STILL have not answered the specific questions asked of you. If you think you are so right, one would think that you would want to engage in that reagard. But you simply ignore what is asked of you repeatedly :rolleyes: and come back and post more empty nonsense.
But, I guess we all do what we can. You keep going on with your bad self. If you didn’t, your intellect wouldn’t be held in the esteem that it is. You wouldn’t be “gonzomax”.
gonzomax, there are plenty of people who think Obama was born in Kenya, and I can link you to their websites. That doesn’t mean they’re right.
How do you define “racist” such that it makes sense for an object to be racist when its creator is not racist? Please just give me a definition of the word for which such an idea is coherent.
Where have you been? How often have you heard a pol apologize for making a statement that was construed racist ? They always say I didn’t mean it that way. Intent is completely and totally irrelevant. You can make a mistake and refer to something you did not even know existed. You would face wrath and charges of racism, whether you understood it or not. You would also be suspect for a long time. That is reality.
I’m sorry, I guess I wasn’t clear. My question to you is this: can you provide a definition of “racist” that can apply to a work of art when there’s no racism on the part of the creator? Feel free to use this template and just change words where necessary:
Racist (adj): depicting [fluffy bunnies].
Unfortunately, there is a problem. There’s no definition of “racist” in that link. I’m well aware that people might see racism where there isn’t any, and I have no problem with such a concept. My problem is with the concept that a work of art can be racist without having a racist creator: that idea is incoherent, as far as I can tell.
Links to stories in which other people propagate such an incoherent idea won’t help. Without explaining how such an idea can be coherent, you won’t convince me that it is.
Again, what would be very helpful is an explanation of what it means. Please tell me what the word “racist” means in the context of claiming that the poster is racist even though the creator is not. I believe that claim isn’t so much incorrect as it is incoherent. Please define the word “racist” in that claim.
http://inthehoodie.com/blog/2008/04/02/who-killed-obama-hoodie-tasteless-racist-art/ Here is a guy who was shocked that his Obama shirts were considered racist. He gives an explanation of intent. But it just hit other people differently than he expected.
You might wonder about a white hoodie with a pointed head being missed by the maker. Wait, you wouldn’t. If he did not intend it to racist, it is not.
I think you’re wrong here. As I’ve opined earlier, I don’t think intent is a necessary component. Not at all. On that, (kill me now) I agree with gonzomax. I think his link shows a good example.
Actually, I don’t know why you’re even arguing this angle. Regardless of the motivation and set of circumstances that that occurred in getting that poster made, a viewer is left to evaluate it, not the history of its conception. In that, it either is or is not reasonable to judge it as racist. It clearly is NOT, as both your posts and mine have shown over and over. All you’re doing is giving the one with racist-colored glasses something to respond to while he doesn’t answer those questions that have been put to him that go to the heart of the matter.
Unfortunately, saw I said, more linked articles are not helpful. What would be helpful is a definition of racist such that it makes sense to say that a work of art is racist when the artist is not.
If you need me to explain what a definition is, please ask.
magellan, I’m approaching it from this angle because gonzomax has, I believe, conceded that the artist in question is probably not racist. I do not believe it is coherent to claim that the work is racist if the artist is not. I don’t even know what “racist” would mean in such a context. That’s not a rhetorical flourish: I’ve looked at several different online dictionaries trying to find a relevant definition of “racist,” and I’ve not found one that would apply.
Conceded? I made that clear from the beginning. I said intend of the originator does not matter. I said that several times so don’t construe that as a some kind of victory.
No problem–no victory construed. Could you please provide a definition of “racist” that can apply to a work of art created by a non-racist artist? magellan, if you have an idea for such a definition, I’d be interested in hearing it.
Without such a definition, I’m afraid the argument falls apart.
Consider checking out www.m-w.com, www.dictionary.com, or www.google.com (type “define:racist”). I’d offer more dictionaries if I thought it’d help. A link to the definition you’re using will suffice, if you’re unable or unwilling to type it out here. But please don’t link to an article in which someone merely uses the word in the same way you’re using it, since I’ll probably find their usage equally opaque, lacking a relevant definition.
You and I, at least, agree on the definition of the word. where we disagree is you’re seeing intent as a necessary component. If a kid learning about Native Americans uses the wheel of life, a.k.a. swastika in a design for a school project, I very easily can see how the end product might be construed as racist without the little kid intending it to be. He might not have even heard of a swastika. I think that even if it is just a big swastika and virtually every adult would “see” swastika, that they would easily give the kid a pass as far as being racist, maybe even give him an A for the class if it’s well done, while deciding to not be one that is hung on the doors of the school.
Conversely, God knows that there are countless untalented artists who intend to convey a feeling or emotion and evoke a particular response and fail miserably. I’ve seen countless landscapes, portraits of dogs, modern art, that are just horrible. They fail as art. They fail in conveying the notion that the artist intended.
I really see intent as being completely separate from the final product. A good artist will have a high degree of success in imbuing the latter with the former. A poor artist will not. And, as with the little kid with the swastika, there can be something conveyed that is accidental, something unintended or unforeseen by the artist.
Another analogy just came to mind. Different cultures give different meanings to different things. If someone gives you the thumbs-up sign, you might nod and smile. If they gave you the finger, you’d give them the finger back and scowl. But what if the those gestures came from someone from a culture where those things meant different things than they do here? What if the thumbs-up meant “up your ass” and “the finger” meant “way to go”.
Now where I think gonzomax is a 1,000% wrong is in thinking that it is reasonable to construe the poster as racist. To get from what is contained in the poster to where he goes with it one has to take way to many liberties with associations that are tangential, at best, and willfully ignore way too many things that have much stronger associations. Yes, he can justify getting from A to B, but he tortures logic and common sense to do so. I see how he gets there. It’s not impossible. It’s just completely unreasonable.
If that doesn’t help, can you explain why you think that intent is a necessary component to how a work of art is perceived?