A few weeks ago I noted this picture circulating in conservative circles (though some of our right-leaning commenters said otherwise), and now here it is in the wild with David McKalip, a Tea Party guy and a conservative doctor opposed to health care reform.
This is who we’re fighting against.
But the teabaggers aren’t racist or anything. They just hate that their betters will have to have their taxes increased to what they were during the longest peacetime expansion in American history, the Clinton years.
You’re not going to get all tumultuous on us now are you?
Worst part is that this asshole is a physician.
I’m surprised and confused by his behavior. Let’s bust him!
Just a few bad apples, right?
Yeah, it’s just a motherfucking shitload of bad apples, pretty much the entire Republican base, which is about all that’s left anyway. That’s all.
OK, brace yourselves for some False Equivalence. Incoming!
Would it be racist if it was the same picture, but from 16 years ago and was of Clinton?
Would a hypothetical apple that never existed actually be a pear if it were really a peach? Or something.
Would it be racist if it was the same picture, but from 16 years ago and was of Clinton?
Sean, please, get real. When was the last time you saw a photo of any white man dressed as a witch doctor?
Sean, it just wouldn’t make any sense.
If you photoshop watermelons onto my lawn, it wouldn’t be racist because there isn’t a context for it. Do it to the president, it is racist, because there is a context.
Oh noesss! I bet that picture caused you all kinds of grief.
People are so damn uptight about race in this country. Call me a cracker, or whatever..I don’t give a shit.
Gabriel sez, “Come and see the violence against white people inherent in the system! Help, help, I’m being repressed!”
I never said such a thing. People just obsess about fucking race. Who gives a shit. Too often people use it as a crutch.
And how the fuck would you know? You know more about racism than people who have been on the receiving end of it their entire lives? Get over yourself, jerk.
Oh, wake the fuck up. Anyone of any race can do just about anything they want to in modern day America.
Again, you don’t have the foggiest idea what the fuck you’re talking about. You just like to repeat right-wing talking points that make you feel comfortably self-righteous. Well, knock yourself out, dimwit.
S. Quaker: Sean, please, get real. When was the last time you saw a photo of any white man dressed as a witch doctor?
Actually mean it as a serious question. If one wanted to make the point that the President’s health plan was not going to be any more effective that voodoo or any other primitive form of medicine, stick his face on the body of a tribal medicine man.
Oh, wake the fuck up. Anyone of any race can do just about anything they want to in modern day America.
Show of hands. Who her thinks Gabriel McKee is not a person of color? {raises hand}
Parthenon: Sean, it just wouldn’t make any sense.
If you photoshop watermelons onto my lawn, it wouldn’t be racist because there isn’t a context for it. Do it to the president, it is racist, because there is a context.
Sure, I get the context part. But if I can put Clinton in the photo without it being racist, but can’t put Obama in the photo to make the same point (say, his medical plan is going to be as effective as the care you’d get from a witch doctor) isn’t treating folks equally being held up a bit because I have to treat the black guy with kid gloves?
Actually mean it as a serious question.
We know. That’s why we think you’re a jackass.
There’s such a thing as “carrying moderation to extremes,” Mr Martin.
“Call me a cracker, or whatever..I don’t give a shit.”
Go back in a time-machine and whip, rape, and mutilate my ancestors, I don’t care.
See, it doesn’t work quite the way you think it does. American History is stubborn that way.
People are so damn uptight about race in this country. Call me a cracker, or whatever..I don’t give a shit.
So we’re all clear here, Gabriel, are you planning to forward the image to your girlfriend with the subject line “HILARIOUS!!!”
Actually mean it as a serious question.
Which is why you’re an idiot.
But if I can put Clinton in the photo without it being racist, but can’t put Obama in the photo to make the same point (say, his medical plan is going to be as effective as the care you’d get from a witch doctor) isn’t treating folks equally being held up a bit because I have to treat the black guy with kid gloves?
I don’t see it necessarily as treating the black guy with kid gloves. There are an assortment of taboos owing to historical context associated with every ethnicity. To my mind, it wouldn’t be racist to imply that the president is money-grubbing, however it would be racist to make that implication about a Jewish person. Conversely, feel free to put the Jew in the witch doctor getup, no racism implied.
As I see it, it’s the connection of ethnicity/nationality to particular context-based image.
I don’t like being overly PC myself. But with these people somebody has to continuously show where the boundaries are, since they former has the moral sense of small children.
It starts innocently enough. An idiot may falsely calls another person an “uh-arab”. Then groups get riled up with baseless accusations of “terrorist sympathizer” against the one called “uh-arab”. Next thing you know mobs are shouting “kill him” at rallies and such. Somebody has to be the adult and take responsibility in those situations, lest things get out of hand.
Being responsible, I’ll change the July 23, 2009 at 10:32 pm thus:
they former has the former have
may falsely calls may falsely call
What happened to my strikethrough?
“People are so damn uptight about race in this country. Call me a cracker, or whatever..I don’t give a shit.
Oh, wake the fuck up. Anyone of any race can do just about anything they want to in modern day America.”
Weird. Another one has appeared.
Sean D: Would it be racist if it was the same picture, but from 16 years ago and was of Clinton?
No. Of course not. Racism by its nature is specifically tailored to the stereotypes associated with a particular ethnic group. It wouldn’t make any sense to stick a bone through Clinton’s nose, which is why — and here comes the clue train, feel free to hop aboard — nobody ever made such a picture.
Sean again: [I]sn’t treating folks equally being held up a bit because I have to treat the black guy with kid gloves?
Kid gloves? No. He’s the president, and thus the fairest target for satire you’ll ever get. And you don’t have to treat him any way at all, not even with basic respect. FSM knows I’ve made my share of disrespectful comments about the previous president. However, if you engage in racist tropes in in the pursuit of your satire, be prepared to be called out as a racist.
Perhaps more to the point: if you have a legitimate satirical point against a public figure like the POTUS, you shouldn’t have any need to resort to racism to make it. The presence of racist imagery is an indication not only of poor social graces, but of a weak argument. In a word: pathetic.
So is there nothing that can be said about Pres Obama in a racial context?
{ Best example I could come up with on short notice } Pres Obama invited PM Netanyahu to a barbecue at the White House, but he had to decline – He couldn’t eat ribs and macaroni and cheese on the same paper plate.
Or is that a twofer?
This is who they are from Rush to teabaggers
Indeed: We know. That’s why we think you’re a jackass.
So what should we call folks who want to call names instead of get into a substantive discussion of race?
Bruce Henry: There’s such a thing as “carrying moderation to extremes,” Mr Martin.
Yeah, I know. And I’ve been fairly accused of it before. But I do see in several recent events an eagerness in those on the left to declare victimhood. There’s also such a thing as seeing offense when none exists.
fafaroo: Which is why you’re an idiot.
For wanting to actually talk about race? OK, gotcha. Thanks.
Parthenon: To my mind, it wouldn’t be racist to imply that the president is money-grubbing, however it would be racist to make that implication about a Jewish person. Conversely, feel free to put the Jew in the witch doctor getup, no racism implied.
Yeah, but that’s the difficulty, isn’t it? How do we move past the history? Two identical people doing identical things. I can portray one as money grubbing but not the other because the second is Jewish. Because of the disparities in how the two people would have been treated historically, I have to continue to treat them differently. Albeit in a somewhat reversed manner.
How long does the “reverse discrimination” have to go on before I can actually view people equally? Doesn’t continuing to focus on the stereotypes prolong them?
For wanting to actually talk about race?
No, silly, for being an idiot. Sheesh.
So what should we call folks who want to call names instead of get into a substantive discussion of race?
I don’t know, why don’t you ask Supreme Republican Leader Rush “Take the bone out of your nose and call me back” Limbaugh?
Felix helix: Perhaps more to the point: if you have a legitimate satirical point against a public figure like the POTUS, you shouldn’t have any need to resort to racism to make it. The presence of racist imagery is an indication not only of poor social graces, but of a weak argument.
I guess in my head it’s a matter of degree. I’m aware of the thin end of the wedge, the slippery slope, the disengenuous “But I’m just using his real full name.” when clearly an implication is trying to be made. But I’ve also seen occasions when more is being made of something than is really there, when offense is really in the eye of the beholder.
And while I’d agree the particular photo is a poor effort, the first thing that struck me was a comment on Obama’s plan and not on his race. Had the person who made it showed it to me I may have told them they’re skating very close to a line and some will take it the wrong way, are they sure they want to risk burying their point by presenting it badly. But, again, to my eye I saw it initially as a comment on the President, and not on a black man.
Indeed: I don’t know, why don’t you ask Supreme Republican Leader Rush “Take the bone out of your nose and call me back” Limbaugh?
Because he’s as much of an “I don’t want to see the point and you can’t make me” idiot as you are.
SDM: <i.But, again, to my eye I saw it initially as a comment on the President, and not on a black man.
But then, when shown a photo of Obama I typically think “That’s the President” instead of “That’s that black guy.” I guess that makes me racist?
For wanting to actually talk about race? OK, gotcha. Thanks.
No. For wanting to talk about race like a complete idiot.
Sean, context counts in representations of this kind.
A swastika spray painted on the side of a synagogue means one thing while a swastika spray painted on the side of catholic church means another.
Indeed, in the latter case, most people’s first response might be, “Uh?”
Clinton with a bone through his nose would trigger the same response: “Uh?” There’s no context for the associations because the immediate target of this particular poster is not, actually, Obama’s health care proposals. It’s Obama himself.
The plan is being attacked through Obama by casting him as a racial caricature.
That you feel the need to raise this question out of some kind of need to be “fair” or “moderate” or whatever position it is that you concern troll from, is just moronic.
Because he’s as much of an “I don’t want to see the point and you can’t make me” idiot as you are.
Oh. My bad. Forgive me, you were being substantive? Never before made with such detail and care? Please continue. We eagerly await your insightful comments.
Indeed: Forgive me, you were being substantive?
Yeah, I’ll stack the substance of my comments up against yours.
Yeah, I’ll stack the substance of my comments up against yours.
You’re on! You first!
Indeed: You’re on! You first!
I just did.
Sheesh.
Would it be racist if it was the same picture, but from 16 years ago and was of Clinton?
Well, it certainly wouldn’t make sense, if that’s your point.
I saw this picture a while ago, probably sometime in February. I’m losing my sense of outrage anymore. It seems the few bad apples make up the majority of the crop.
(say, his medical plan is going to be as effective as the care you’d get from a witch doctor)
Okay, fine. I’ll spot you the point. How then do you reconcile the hammer and sickle “C” in Obama Care? It is a non-sequitor in that it does not have anything to do with the image. The image portrays the President as an aboriginal person, which offends people who share his color. It’s one thing to criticize him for his ideas; it is quite another to criticize the one thing he can do nothing about.
Not being a black man in America, I also find it offensive.