I’d say the problem with your paraphrase is that “doesn’t work as satire” is not the same thing as “not satire.”
Somehow, I suspect the irony generated by a comparison of your posts in this thread, and your posts in this thread, would be completely lost on you.
I am not familiar with the character of the Joker. But I thought the idea of the posters was that Obama was going to institute socialism without using the word and by pretending to not be doing it, and that one day people would realize they had been duped into a socialist system by Obama and the “joke” would be on them.
Legitimate satire IMO, though obviously a debatable premise. And again, if the movie character of The Joker precludes this interpretation then I guess it’s wrong.
Something I wanted to mention a few days ago when the thread started but didn’t because I can’t find the damn picture . . .
Has anyone seen the parody of the “Hope” poster where Obama’s lips are upturned just like the Joker and there’s a hammer and sickle in the background, and instead of hope it says “Fooled You!”?
That’s a joker parody of the Hope poster, and it is several months old.
It’s a stretch to call this one (the poster which is the subject of this thread) a parody because I can’t figure out what it’s parodying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXB3pTMkQFs&feature=related Of course this is not racist either. Just big “watermelon” grins after all.
Wow. Yu’re argument that the Obama “Joker” poster is racist now is reduced to: “b-b-but a cartoon from 70 years ago is racist.”
IM CONVINCED!!! :rolleyes:
Not true at all.
I have criticized Obama here on the SDMB. I have yet to have anyone call me a racist.
I think “racist” gets flung around when the criticism is devoid of anything rational. When the criticism is, “He is a Kenyan” while someone waves an official state document under their nose showing that he was born in Hawaii one then begins to wonder what else is at work in their heads. When cries of “socialism” are hollered with zero attempt at anything beyond that for discussion one has to wonder what else is behind that.
There are lots and lots of thoughtful criticism of Obama and his policies and I see no one leveling a charge of racism at those people.
The charge of racism is too casually used as well, I admit. But you can certainly criticize Obama with ease and avoid being called a racist for it.
To the OP I agree: Not racist, just bad satire.
I’ll add that if the viewer does not have the context of who/what The Joker is then it could be perceived as a more a parody of the Al Jolson black-face era which certainly smacks of racism. I do not believe that was the artist’s intent though. Just that some might see it that way.
The article explains why people who were offended by the poster felt it was racist – they said it made Obama look like he was performing in a minstrel show.
I would be very surprised if any such idea crossed the artist’s mind, but in the picture Obama is in whiteface and has an exaggerated big red mouth. The big red mouth in particular is a component of pretty much every racist caricature of a black person ever. The Joker does of course wear whiteface makeup with red lipstick too because he’s supposed to look like a clown, but I can’t blame people for not making this non-racist association since it doesn’t make any sense in context. The Joker isn’t a Socialist.
There probably isn’t any way to depict a black man as having a big red mouth without evoking some very ugly racist images, but in this case the designer really shot him/herself in the foot by making a political poster that doesn’t have a coherent message. It looks to me like the artist had two unrelated ideas, “Obama is a dangerous clown just like the Joker” and “Obama is a Socialist”, and decided to use them both in one poster. I doubt he or she gave much thought to how other people would interpret the poster.
Someone struggling to make some connection between the image and the words might conclude that it was meant as a racist attack because that at least makes some kind of sense. There are racists who are unhappy about having a black president and who would want to depict him in a racially offensive manner. Such people are also unlikely to have friendly feelings towards far-left political groups. The poster could even be interpreted as meaning “This is a black man who tries to act white, just like he tries to pretend he isn’t a Socialist…but really he’s just a big black Socialist!” That would be something of a stretch, but less of a stretch than it takes get from “Obama is the Joker” to “Obama is a Socialist”.
So I’d say this was a badly designed poster that probably was not intended to be racist, but that was so very badly designed that a racist interpretation makes at least as much sense as the intended message.
My feeling is this: that the makeup really does give an impression of a “reverse blackface” (or, I guess you could just call it “whiteface”). The person who created it may not have realized that it gave that effect, but the effect is still there. I suppose it’s not really racist in any virulent way, but intentionally or not, it can call to mind racist images for people who are familiar with them.
I think the people who are flat out saying it’s not racist are not seeing this point. Does it need to me condemned as racist? Probably not. Is there an association with racism that can be legitimately (albeit perhaps tenuously) made? I’d say so.
Something can’t accidentally be racist.
You should be, this cartoon was not the only one like it. It was a common way of treating blacks. I could post 50 more but you apparently have your mind shut. Pick up your damn eyes and learn something. The watermelon smile and white teeth were racist charactertures of the first half of this century. Early movies were the same. Blacks were a smile and white teeth. I suppose Stepin Fetchitt was before your time too. Therefore that treatment which many blacks were humiliated by, must not be true either. The poster harkens back to those times. Not every body is in their 20s.
But we’re not talking about a watermelon smile and white teeth, are we. No, we’re not. We’re talking about something that comes from the world of clowns. White face, even on white people. That is where The Joker came from, made increasingly dark and demonic for Batman. Then we have the fact that the same thing was done to Bush. It was not a comment on his blackness. It was a commentary on him the same way it was a commentary on Bush, as poorly as it may have been done in either case. Portraying each of them as a very dark, sinister, maniacal genius operating above the plane of the lamblike masses.
The poster harkens back to those times decades ago only in your mind.
You remember Stepin Fetchit’s heyday? The heyday that was in the 1920s and 30s? Cause if you do, you’re older than my parents and I am, in fact, 52.
I grew up in military communities, mostly in the south, and - obviously - mostly in the 1960s. I know racist when I see it. The poster isn’t racist.
You, on the other hand, are simply ignoring every cultural context of the poster except for the one from the first half of the last century, 70 or 80 years ago, that I do not believe you actually have personal knowledge of.
That’s a silly argument. It would be just as likely that you’ve become inured to milder forms of racism in your exposure to major forms.
That’s a valid thought on your part.
Here’s my view: the Joker is based on a clown, white face, red lips, dark eyes, all features exaggerated and all based not at all on black people.
gonzo appears to be basing his argument solely on the carictature of black people as big grins.
Which of these applies to the political poster and does not apply to such as the Cheshire Cat, Groucho Marx, or Ross Perot?
No. You do not know racist. You have a short term experience that does not include those times. Mine does. You are just plain wrong. It was blatantly racist. I am 66. Much of my growing up entertainment was the cartoons that depicted blacks that way. Most of the cartoons were made in the 30s and 40s. But it is not only cartoons. Movies and TV were the same. They were repulsive then, and are today. It was terrible how blacks were portrayed . That poster calls back those times.
The exaggerated big red lips. The Cheshire cat may have a big grin, but I’ve never seen him depicted as having oversized red lips. Grotesquely exaggerated lips have, however, been a part of countless racist depictions of black people. Take a look at the images for the Wikipedia entry for blackface. They don’t just show performers or caricatures with dark skin, they also have big, red mouths. For the performers these big, red mouths are often painted on beyond their actual lips. This poster depicts Obama as having a big, red mouth painted on beyond his actual lips, not unlike this African-American blackface performer.
Of course, it’s also not unlike these depictions of The Joker, and Heath Ledger as the Joker was the obvious inspiration for the image. Since the poster was anonymous there’s no way to find out what the artist was thinking, but I think it’s unlikely (although not impossible) that he or she intended to evoke a minstrel show performer. But it’s incorrect to claim that the poster has no more in common with a blackface character than the Cheshire Cat, Groucho Marx, or Ross Perot. Those last three do not have the exaggerated big red lips that are one of the primary features of the blackface look.
.jpg){kind=link}
This association may or may not have even crossed the artist’s mind. But it’s not that much of a leap to make the connection between a famous black man with big red lips painted onto his face and a blackface performer in a minstrel show, and it makes more sense than the artist’s attempt to connect the Joker to Socialism. I’m sure there are many people, particularly older people, who didn’t recognize that Obama was supposed to be the Joker at all. He doesn’t look much like pre-The Dark Knight depictions of the Joker. He’s specifically Heath Ledger as the Joker, and he doesn’t even have green hair or the Joker’s famous purple and green suit. Since the caption gives no hint that Obama is supposed to be the Joker, these people must have asked themselves “Why is Obama made up that way?” Given the long history of similar images of black people, they might not unreasonably conclude that it’s a racist caricature depicting Obama as some kind of minstrel show performer: a black man in whiteface because he either wants to be white or wants to trick white people.
I doubt this is what the artist intended, but if the artist didn’t want to be misinterpreted then he/she should have come up with a poster that actually made sense. (LHoD’s suggested caption of “Money to Burn” would have been pretty clever.) Since the artist is anonymous it’s not like accusations of racism are going to hurt his or her reputation, and nothing’s stopping him or her from coming forward and saying “Gosh, I really didn’t mean it that way at all.” Whatever the artist did mean, I can easily believe that some people genuinely took the poster to be a racist caricature. It wasn’t crazy or stupid for them to do so. Even if only by coincidence, the image of Obama as the Joker featured painted on big red lips very similar to those of a blackface performer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfiNT6AKG0s Heres an example from 1950. How insulting does it have to be for you?
No it doesn’t. And I remember the caricatures on TV. You might as well say Ringling Brothers’ clowns call back those times. Frank is right. (Especially since he said basically what I said.;)) The Joker poster comes from here. Than morphed into a more sinister Jack version, then into the disturbingly dark portrayal by Ledger. Note that they ALL use white face and a grotesquely exaggerated smile.
Now, I’m not denying that YOU may see racism in it. But, as I said earlier, if you do, you should probably reevaluate your notions of what is racist and what isn’t.
Pay attention to this: no one is claiming that the stuff you’re citing did not exist or that it was not racist. No one. So, you can post 10,000 more old cartoons and stage shows and it will not help your case one iota.