The word “racism”, long shouted by people determined to shut down their opponents has been losing it’s meaning for decades. With this disgraceful article from the LA Times, the word has officially gone from meaning “thinking people are inferior human beings because of their race” to “I like the person you’re criticizing and, justified as it may be, I don’t like what you said. And since the target of your criticism is of a race that gives me an opportunity to use my favorite word…”
The same can be said for the words “sexism” and “homophobia”. It is for this reason that it was so easy to satirize the use of these words in Bias Incident: The World’s Most Politically Incorrect Novel.
So, what did the LA Times write?
A baldly racist depiction of First Lady Michelle Obama that appeared Tuesday on a right-wing website is based on a 1775 portrait of Marie Antoinette by Jean-Baptiste André Gautier-Dagoty (1740-1786). The full-length painting hangs outside Paris in the Palace of Versailles.
The Internet image grafts Obama’s face onto Gautier-Dagoty’s lavish depiction of the French queen, dressed in full regalia. It also replaces the draped left arm of the young monarch, then barely 20, with a muscular black arm and shifts the position of the right hand to place it in front of a world globe.
The caricature of Obama as a profligate queen relies on the racist stereotype of an “uppity Negro,” which emerged among slave masters in an earlier American era. Obama, born into a working-class Chicago family whose roots are traced to the pre-Civil War South, graduated from Princeton University and Harvard Law School, prior to holding several high-level positions in the academic and private sectors.
Now, Michelle Obama, amid awful economic carnage, has been profligate in spending taxpayer money on vacations, dates with her husband and other useless perks.
You know who else was a useless, profligate wastrel who extravagantly pampered herself amid the economic hardship of her people? Marie Antoinette, that’s who.
The comparison is justified.
Honestly, if we can’t have black public figures about whom we can make justified criticisms without shouts of “racism”, then we just can’t have black public officials at all. (Before you shout “racism” (and I know you’re gonna) the same can be said for white public officials, if they were prone to shouting “racism” or some such at every criticism or Jewish public officials if they were prone to shout “antisemitism” at every criticism or ugly public officials if they were prone to shout “lookism” at every criticism).
Public officials pretty uniformly do a lousy job in office. They are, almost without exception, narcissistic, venal, avaricious and incompetent. They are bound to give us what to criticize. And we need to be able to criticize them. If there is a class of individuals immune to criticism, whatever that class may be, that immunity in and of itself makes them unqualified for office.
Congress had appropriated $20,000 to redecorate the White House but when she was finished she overspent by $6,700. Lincoln was irate when he discovered she had spent so much. “It would stink in the nostrils of the American people to have it said the President of the United States had approved a bill overrunning an appropriation of $20,000 for flub dubs, for this damned old house, when the soldiers cannot have blankets,” Lincoln said. If Congress had not covered the overage, it would have come out of Lincoln’s pocket.
I think if they had left the arms, as they were in the painting, or Michelle’s actual arm I could see it as just criticism. That just seems petty, but I will admit it comes across as less “racist” and more “sexist”. It seems to perpetrate an idea that somehow she’s not feminine enough because her arms are more muscular then the average female.
………..That said, I find the site you linked, to be ah, lacking intellectually. Not necessarily the content it’s self, but the commenters. The “Moochelle” insults are rather telling.
I think it’s quite reasonable to criticize vacations that politicians in general make during such times of economic downturn, especially the First Family. But I also expect said criticisms to be that, not an attack on unrelated topics (her arms). And presidential vacations during crappy economies are not new to this administration, which if one is interested in progress and not petty partisanship, is good to keep in mind.
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/president-obamas-vacation-days/
5 minutes on google only turned up one good non-partisan result, and it covers the first year vacations.
NG,
Much has been made of the first lady’s “highly toned” arms. See: http://articles.cnn.com/2009-02-26/health/toning.obama.arms_1_arms-strength-training-first-lady?_s=PM:HEALTH
Exaggeration has been a part of political cartooning since time immemorial. It’s not racist at all. Sorry.
I realize exaggeration is a part of political cartooning. But there’s a difference between toned, and roid-rage arms. It’s also not related to the topic they are critiquing.
And said I thought it was less “racist” and more “sexist” because of the arm. If you want to dismiss my point of view, at least dismiss the right one.
Fine. Sexist, whatever. (Always with the Left, it’s a choice of three condemnatory words…).
When you exaggerate, you have to, you know, exaggerate. How does this not make perfect sense?
Because it’s not just exaggeration (Also, I get exaggeration, I went to school for animation, where we learned the Looney Tunes rule of squash and stretch, which is go as far as you can, then go one step further, my problem isn’t that it’s exaggerated, it’s that it’s *maliciously* exaggerated). First off, this isn’t a black and white political cartoon, it’s a color photo manip. with the actual face of Michele Obama, exaggerating the arms isn’t needed for purposes of recognition. Secondly, when one *purposefully* in depiction alters a person to include anatomy of the opposite gender, it is usually meant to be read as an insult. If someone were to photoshop a male politician with heels, how would you read it? That they’re either “girly” or gay. In this case someone photoshopped a male body builders arm onto a woman, it reads as though she’s “manly”. or “not feminine enough to be a woman”. It’s a gender based insult. You might see it as just “exaggeration”, the person who photoshopped it might see it as just exaggeration, but on a subconscious level, it suggests that deviation from traditional gender roles are wrong.
If the arms weren’t so obviously male, it would actually be a pretty good detail, what with Michele’s penchant for sleeveless outfits. But this feels like pandering to an audience of people who disliked her before, and as I pointed out with the “Moochele” commenters, not always for valid, logical reasons.
Shanna,
Now, I would never put this up on the main page, because I think it inappropriate. But like many inappropriate things, it cracks me up even if I disapprove. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9KopxdA-I
THAT’s sexist. (But oddly, not racist).
If the president’s wife had been a white woman and the same parody made, no one would have said a thing. I’m sick of the racism card.
Hey, I might have mentioned this in the past and forgotten, but when did I tell you my name? Kinda caught me off guard.
Is that a parody? I ask mainly because there’s an Ad by Obama For America on the side.
Yes, that is sexist. (but, kinda racist too) Just because there are more blatant examples of sexism doesn’t mean the more subtle ones should be given a free pass.
You didn’t. I’m magic. (Okay, seriously, you said you went to school for animation. So, I entered your email address into my search engine and boom. There was your site. Not hard. I was getting tired of talking to anonymous after all these years).
I don’t think it’s a parody. The guy is serious. This is one of those things that I’m not proud to find extremely funny. But I find it extremely funny anyway. I’m sure you have things like that, stuff that’s completely inappropriate but you can’t help laughing (personally, I’m completely okay with having a bit of a dark side. We all do).
Ahhh. And actually, thanks. For someone reason I never thought to google search this e-mail account, but good to know it shows up clean too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCH7JjQC4Rc
Inappropriate, hilarious and doesn’t leave a terrible taste in your mouth afterwards.
Frankly, every time I think of Japanese Animation, I can’t help but think of the guys from this story: http://www.politicallyincorrectnovel.com/the-story/
If it makes you feel any better, the majority of anime fans I know tend to do nothing besides drink occasionally. (In art school, the animators might smoke weed and drink, it’s the photographers and musicians that do the hard stuff)
Have you ever watched the Furry episode of CSI? It’s all kinds of special. You’d get a kick out of it I bet.
I really don’t watch much TV. I rent DVDs from Netflix, but most of what I watch is Khan Academy or Teaching Company DVDs.
I’m not sure what you mean about “feel any better.” The guy who died fired an automatic weapon in the near vicinity of my infant children. Honestly, I don’t miss him. Babies and automatic weapons fire don’t mix.
Well, I can only assume you brought up anime because of the (mostly from 5 or more years ago) art on my site.
Of course, if you thought Dirdy Birdy was anime, I’d suggest seeing if you can find The Animation Show on Netflix, and broaden your animation horizons.
Dirdy Birdy is completely American, John R. Dilworth also did Courage the Cowardly Dog.