Nobody would assume that. There is no history for such an absurd idea. There is no background to connect it to. That analogy was flat out wrong.
The Joker is evil. He does evil things, for their own sake and for his own selfish entertainment. A Joker/Obama rendering says Obama/Joker is unrelentingly evil and can never be reasoned with, bullied, bought, or compromised with. “Some men just want to watch the world burn”. That is the simplest explanation.
I think that would fit “the Razor”
And the history for depicting people in minstrel garb, with emphasized stitches at the edge of their mouth, is…
Steve, the problem with that is the word “Socialism.” When you depict a person in another person’s outfit, any caption needs to emphasize similarities between the two. No doubt you’re on the right track (I suspect the artist’s thinking was more like, “Obama bad! Joker bad! Me funny!”), but the caption ruins the effect.
No, PUAFPITNMWDI.*
Mailboxes aren’t private property.
What are you asking from us here? OK, it was a Bad Thing to put up a poster on some unspecified, unnamed private property (if it really happened). Naughty naughty.
This fucking idiot (and you) want to make a federal case out of it. Geez, whine much?
Regards,
Shodan
"Putting Up A Fucking Poster Is Trivial No Matter Who Does It.
Sorry–I thought it was mindnumbingly clear that I was referencing the original quote from the article that I’d provided and to which you responded with the mailbox goalpost move: “City officials, meanwhile, are trying to determine what local crimes might be associated with the posting of the images on public and private properties.”
There you go. Of course that should be a crime; of course it should be investigated the same way that a mass-tagger should be investigated.
Okay, back to the mailbox. Are you seriously suggesting that vandalizing federal property ought not be a federal crime? Are you conflating the precise definition of a federal crime (one that breaks a federal law) with the idiom (something that’s really big)? Do you expect that nobody will see this equivocation?
Of course vandalizing federal property is a crime covered by federal statute; of course it’s therefore a federal crime. This isn’t a statement of the crime’s import, merely of the jurisdiction that covers it.
I didn’t know those were supposed to be stitches.
Again, didn’t see the movie, am not familiar with that image, so it struck me a different way. I didn’t see the details those familiar with the image found so obvious. I thought it was a black man in white face with a hideous painted-on smile and skull-like circles around his eyes.
This is the sort of ignorance that is not a character flaw. I’m ignorant of the plot of Snakes on a Plane; if the satire pointed to that movie and I misinterpreted it because of my ignorance, I wouldn’t be at fault.
If, however, someone described a salient point from the movie to me, and it matched the satire very closely (even stipulating that the satire was thereby a total failure), and I refused to recognize the correlation, then I’d be engaging in willful ignorance.
Similarly, if you weren’t familiar with Heath Ledger’s Joker and you therefore interpreted the poster differently, that’s no problem; that’s simple ignorance, easily fixed. If, upon becoming aware of Ledger’s Joker, you maintain the interpretation you had beforehand, that would look suspiciously like willful ignorance.
Okay, but you seem to be saying that someone can’t have a reaction that’s informed by what they do know. For those of us without familiarity with the specific image of this particular Joker, the other images, the ones we are familiar with, have to step to the fore. It’s not a conscious substitution. We can’t unsee what we saw, and we can’t necessarily override the extant images in our brains just because someone is sneering at us on the internet.
Now, I accept and believe that the artist’s intent wasn’t likely to have anything to do with racism or black/white face. To me, it’s a coincidence that some of the features are so similar. I’m assuming that to gonzomax, it’s NOT a coincidence that some of the features are so similar–that there was a reason this particular image was chosen despite it being such a lame attempt at satire.
This comes right up against some of the images we saw in the campaigns, things like people wearing alligator or “alligator bait” hats or shirts. “See, they’re from Florida. Florida gators. See, that’s the reason for the alligator bait hat. Oh, it’s just a coincidence that alligators and alligator bait is something that historically popped up in racist circles and is now being seen so much when there’s a black man running for office. Nothing to see here.”
Yeah, there is a connection between Florida and alligators and yeah there can be and are lots of innocent use of alligators. Alligators don’t have to mean something racist by a long shot.
But they can.
And the more often you encounter the dog-whistle politics, the more often you suspect it even when it’s probably not there.
So, while I think that gonzomax is wrong in this case, I can’t blame him for seeing that picture in light of all of the images he’s been exposed to throughout his life and possibly without having a strong overriding image of the Joker to balance it out.
The simple fact is that you showed an example of racism in the past. You then lamely attempted to join that to the poster by “an exaggerated smile”. And unlike you, I went clicked AND commented on every site you provided. I also pointed out SPECIFICALLY why your equating the two made no sense. In this thread I have posted numerous cites and asked you to comment on them; I’ve asked you numerous specific questions. What do you do? Exactly what I expect of you. You do not digest information. You do not—in GD of all places—answer specific questions posed to you. Instead you stomp your feet hurling insults. But you don’t understand that any insult from you going to intelligence or debating tactics is empty. It’s like a midget trying to insult someone 5’7" by calling him short. It gets a snicker maybe, and not in the direction you intend. The fact that this is all lost on you is entertaining, I will admit.
So, why don’t YOU put up or shut up? Why don’t YOU debate in good faith and answer the questions I have put to you. Your refusal to do so speaks volumes. I’ll sit back now and watch you amplify your sad behavior by doing your same old dance of denial. Maybe you can dance with this guy, or these, and ask them why they’re trying to bring back the minstrel shows.
And you might want to stick to the forum rules. Just a thought.
I personally have a big problem with the idea that there is only one correct interpretation for a creative work and that anyone who thinks otherwise is either ignorant or unreasonable. This poster in particular is very open to interpretation because it doesn’t have a clear message.
Since the designer is anonymous then we don’t know what s/he thought they were saying with this poster, all we can do is guess. We don’t know that the same person who designed the poster created the image of Obama as the Joker, it might have just been pulled off the Internet. It’s within the realm of possibility that the poster designer was looking for a scary or ridiculous image of Obama and didn’t even recognize that he was supposed to be the Joker. That would explain why the image has nothing to do with the caption.
All we have to go on is a poster that I think we’ve all agreed doesn’t make much sense. Even if we knew what the poster designer intended, I don’t think it would be fair to call others unreasonable for failing to guess that intent from an ambiguous image. I consider it even less fair to insist that someone is unreasonable for not going along with the designer’s intended meaning when we don’t really know what the intended meaning was.
Lamia, there’s not always one correct meaning to any work–but there are myriad incorrect meanings. If I interpret The Great Gatsby as a scathing indictment of the food industry, I’m just wrong. That’s a shitty interpretation of the work.
In this case, the evidence is very clear that the designer of the image intended for it to be conflating Obama and The Joker. The designer of the poster is innocent of any racist intention, almost certainly. If you get such a meaning from the poster, that is, I believe, a shitty interpretation, since there’s no clear correlation between the two.
If people don’t guess the intent of the overall poster, that’s fine. If they can’t guess the intent of the image to conflate Obama and The Joker, then I think they’re being willfully ignorant: the evidence is overwhelming that there was such an intent. (For it to be a coincidence is extraordinarily unlikely–I defy you to find any other caricature of any other politician that has coincidental exaggerated stitches on the cheeks, stitches unrelated either to the original figure or to the one to whom the satired figure is being compared).
I think you’re taking postmodernism too far. Yes, there’s no one correct interpretation of any work of art; but some interpretations just suck, because there’s precious little evidence to support them.
Please. Minstrel shows have been part of popular culture, or unpopular culture for 50 75 years. They are not part of his frame of reference as if he was born in 1890. And the little reference there is is overridden by the Batman movie. Not only was it a huge blockbuster hit and up for some Academy Awards (including one for Ledger’s portrayal of The Joker), Ledger’s death brought it even more to the fore. On top of that we have Bush cariactured in the exact same way.
Now, it’s one thing if no one had ever seen the image of The Joker. If you popped someone in from 1930 and asked him to comment on the image, he might have the reaction that gonzomax claims to have. Or if there was a 90-year-old black man who has been ignorant of culture for the past 40 years. But even then, my guess is that they’d associate the image at least as much with clowns or some take off on Haitian or Louisianan Dance of the Dead.
But we’re talking about a poster here that was born in 1940s. He regularly posts on the internet on a site that a casual user doesn’t even know exists. he’s offered opinions on a variety of current events and subjects that demonstrate he is attune to popular culture. And HE has never claimed never having seen the image. So the out you attempt to give him is more than a little wanting.
But even if such a person would have been insulated from the Batman craze and Ledger’s death and the Academy Awards and the depiction of Bush in whiteface and their reference was a world that existed 80 years ago, one would think that after getting a tenth of the feedback he’s gotten in this thread, such a person would have the good sense and good grace to admit that he is not someone who could fairly judge the poster. He might as well open a restaurant in Israel with a swastika as a logo and claim that people should see in it the symbol used by native Americans at the turn of the last century.
Wait. You’re moving the goalposts. It’s one thing to be able to discern precisely what the satire is a a poster, with a headline, it’s another to discern what the image itself harkens back to. Please see my last post. I’ll just highlight here, that we have Bush depicted in precisely the same fashion. The Joker = an anarchist intent on dismantling society. That was the reason Bush was depicted in whiteface and an exaggerated smile. And that is the reason Obama was depicted the same way.
You are sinking like a rock. The sites I gave you were examples of racism from the past. I had to do that. I have no cites for the future. The point of course was that these are examples of blacks being depicted with big wide mouths. The picture showed Obama with a big wide mouth. Can you follow that far.
Then I made the point hat that stuff was aired in my past. So I connected the two. That would mean in my life blacks were depicted that way and it was wrong and embarrassing to me that they even did got away with that stuff back then. You of course declared that my reaction to the poster is not valid because your experiences were different and somehow supersede mine. You have the audacity to suggest that your opinion which was formed since the 70s is correct. My honest reaction to the posters is wrong. That is so wrong in so many ways. But apparently you believe that is debate. Good for you. It is not .
Incorrect. Like so much of what you type.
Now, why don’t you read my posts over, check out the sites AND answer the specific questions I asked of you. Why won’t you do that? This is GD. That’s the way it works. I’ve addressed everything you’ve said. You just keep parroting the same stuff back like a doll with a pull-string.
Now, either you will answer those questions i’ve asked of you (easily identified by the little squiggle (?) at the end of the sentence), or I and others will accept that you’re just mouth, no substance.
On THAT we can agree. Now that wasn’t so hard was it?
It might not be racist, but it is something of a nonsequitur. The hard right has been demonizing Obama as a Communist. The Joker, at least in Heath Ledger’s portrayal, is an anarchist/nihilist. Not the same thing at all.
I don’t think anyone has denied that the image of Obama is directly based on an image of Heath Ledger as the Joker. Someone who was unfamiliar with the latest version of the Joker wouldn’t recognize this, but when shown a picture of the Joker from The Dark Knight they’d probably see it. But “this is a picture of Obama painted up as if he were the Joker” is not a political message. It’s possible that whoever originally created the image did it on a whim – it wouldn’t surprise me if there were websites devoted to Photoshopped pictures of famous people painted up like the Joker. But what was intended by sticking this image on a poster with the caption “SOCIALISM” is anyone’s guess. I very much doubt it was just to show the world what Obama would look like with Joker makeup on, though.
If that’s the reason, why is it directly contradicted by the caption? Anarchism and socialism are nearly opposites. People who are afraid that Obama is a closet Socialist are worried that he wants too much government, not that he wants to tear down the government.
As I and others have already offered, the poster as a whole (image and words) fails as being good commentary. I don’t think anyone has disputed that. I think the person who created the full poster (who may or may not have been the same person who created the image) was playing loose. Something along the lines: “they’re both trying to dismantle the society that we currently have”. The move toward what some view as a more socialistic U.S would support that addition of “Socialist” under the image. Just a guess though.
I think the caption I offered back on Page 1 would have made much more sense.
Why does the intent of the poster matter? I don’t believe it was meant to be racist. That does not mean that it isn’t. That has never been part of the discussion. It is simple. To people of my time the poster recalled racist depictions of the past. Pretty simple to understand. It was probably unintended but is is just is.
Sorry, it’s not quite that simple, as you now have expanded your claim to say that your opinion is held by all, or even some substantial chunk, of people who share your 66 years. I’d venture to guess that some of the posters in this thread might be from your era, maybe they can weigh in. But, since is GD, I’ll have to ask for a cite of some sort.
And I request of you AGAIN to answer what has been asked of you.