File puptcrit/puptcrit.0902, message 637


Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:57:01 -0800 (PST)
From: EM Martin <ffantona-AT-yahoo.com>
To: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org
Subject: Re: [Puptcrit] STOP HATED & BIGOTED MEDIA


Alexander, 

Your letter has some great points in it as well and is very thoughtful. My letter wasn't a defense of George W. Bush, of course. There's no need for it to have been or for it to have said anything negative about President Obama, as you understand.  And if I thought the cartoon really was comparing President Obama to an ape, I would certainly agree that that was a lot worse than comparing George Bush to a chimp because of the terrible history of how African Americans were so often depicted.

But I think it's very dangerous and self-destructive for artists to join a cry for censorship of another artist.  And I think the rubric you've come up with could unintentionally make it even worse. You write 

> The author of this cartoon, even if he did not
> intend the racist
> undertones inherent within it, is being racist. Whether he
> meant it or not,
> he insulted his audience in a grievious manner, and
> deserves the flak he
> gets.

But think of where that leads us.  Forget Free Speech, think of what it would mean to be guilty of thought crimes you didn't commit. If someone is offended by anything you do or put in a show, you are guilty, whether you meant what they thought you meant or not, whether you intended what offended them, or whether your cultures are even offended by the same things.  If the cartoonist really wanted to compare the President to a chimp because he is an African American, that is reprehensible.  But we have to reach far into our own prejudices to make such an assumption. Our prejudices against the artist and his paper, and even our own deeper, uglier prejudices about race.

There would be no need for trials, only accusations and punishments. In Salem the lack of physical evidence, even the fact that witchcraft wasn't real, didn't save the accused from getting hanged.  They must have been witches, because some teenage girls said so, and because to say witchcraft wasn't real and girls might lie about it was the work of the devil.

Theorizing about the original "King Kong", a movie that features many animated puppets, it was at one time fashionable to say that the movie was a coded tale about the Black experience in America. A dark, powerful male is brought here in chains. He is dangerous because he is strong and commanding and dominates a white woman. A king in his own land, he is a slave here, and must die because he will not remain bound.  Another interpretation was that the movie was all about sex.  After all, Kong climbed what was the tallest phallic symbol in the world at the time with that blonde he lusted after.  But of course the plot was obsessed with sex, the theory went, because it as written by a stripper. 

Except "King Kong" wasn't written by a stripper, and its story was not inspired by ruminations on race but by the life experiences of its two producers, who had spent years making films about wild animals.  Should the producers be praised or condemned for making a film with racial overtones, not even undertones, when they almost certainly were not trying to make a picture about race at all? They made an action film about a tragic and noble animal. His body but not his spirit was conquered by civilization and by love. It's a lot like the real story of the chimp killed in Connecticut.  It was the critics of "King Kong" and academics teaching courses on the movie who reached for a racial aspect, not the creators of the film. 

The interpreter of the Post cartoon was the Rev. Al Sharpton. At least I didn't see the cartoon until Sharpton's comments made it infamous. But let's say the Post's cartoon was deliberately created to be so vile as has been suggested, as to say President Obama is a monkey. While I think it's fine to protest that, I don't think it's a good idea to encourage censorship or call for artists to get fired for being offensive.  If we do, can we ever justifiably complain about "small minded" audiences or censors, or threats to our jobs that come because we intentionally, or accidentally, offended somebody somewhere? I have met artists who get a kick out of offending "the rubes" but have a very thin skin themselves.

Some of them are even puppeteers.

Peace, Alexander.  I appreciate the care and thoughtfulness you put into your note.

Doris 


--- On Sat, 2/21/09, Alexander Winfield <sheepwpunks-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Alexander Winfield <sheepwpunks-AT-gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Puptcrit] STOP HATED & BIGOTED MEDIA/ART/SPEECH/MURDOC
> To: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org
> Date: Saturday, February 21, 2009, 12:38 PM
> Doris,
> 
>    I think you make some excellent points regarding the
> political cartoon.
> Any call for censorship of an artist tends to make me
> shiver a bit, and we
> as artists must be very careful when he hear a call for
> censorship to not
> jump on the bandwagon as it were. It is also true that
> President Bush
> received many death threats in his term, and in addition
> there were many
> instances of the media producing some very strong anti-Bush
> works. "Death of
> a President", which you referenced, being a good
> example: a 'what-if' film
> that wonders what would happen, in the then current world
> climate, if
> President Bush was assassinated. Lampooning, satire and
> outright mocking
> have dogged every president, and we should not expect Obama
> to be exempt
> from such things. It's part of the deal of being a
> public figure: the public
> gets to criticize you.
>    However, I will take issue with one part of your
> argument: you mention
> that Bush was often lampooned as a monkey or chimp-like
> figure (as was
> Lincoln), implying that such caricature (the comparing of a
> president to an
> ape) has precedent, and thus this incident is no different.
> This is simply
> not the case, due to one fact: social context. It is true
> that in the United
> States (and, indeed, in many countries) people of African
> descent have
> routinely been made to seem sub-human or inferior by a
> variety of tactics,
> one of the most popular being comparing them to
> monkeys/apes etc. I remember
> a soccer game in France when the crowd starting making
> chimp-like "ooo-ooo"
> noises in an attempt to shame an african player. This is,
> in its way, an
> historical tradition, albeit a grotesquely racist one.
> While white public
> figures may be compared to apes (the puppet show you
> mentioned being a
> perfect example) this is a different matter, due to this
> lack of the social
> context of racism. Comparing a white leader to a chimp is
> certainly not
> nice, and is without a doubt insulting (as is most satire),
> but it is not
> racist. Comparing a Black Leader to a chimp is.
>    Now, the author of this cartoon may not have meant to
> make this
> comparison (I'm not sure if he was): he may have only
> meant to have made the
> point you claim he made, that the bill "is so bad only
> a crazy chimp could
> have made it." This does not however excuse the author
> of being guilty of
> one of the most deadly sins an artist may fall prey to:
> ignorance. It is
> his/her responsibility as an artist to be aware of the
> implications of
> connecting a chimp to a black leader (even if Obama did not
> write the Bill
> and only signed it, he is seen as the 'author' of
> the bill by the public at
> large and thus may be seen by the public as being the
> 'crazy chimp' who
> wrote it). It will be seen as racist by a great number of
> his audience.
> Having white police men standing over the dead body of the
> 'chimp', having
> just shot him, only adds to the potential of the piece to
> insult and
> repulse.
>    Naivete of an artist, especially an artist syndicated in
> a very popular
> newspaper, is not just a matter of 'bad taste': it
> is seriously
> irresponsible, and we as artists must hold ourselves
> accountable for such
> mistakes. The author of this cartoon, even if he did not
> intend the racist
> undertones inherent within it, is being racist. Whether he
> meant it or not,
> he insulted his audience in a grievious manner, and
> deserves the flak he
> gets.
> 
> "Coded language doesn't have to enter into an
> interpretation of a pretty
> simple joke."
> 
> Yes it can. Sometimes it must.
> 
> yrs. sincerely,
> 
> 
> Alexander Winfield


      
_______________________________________________
List address: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org
Admin interface: http://lists.puptcrit.org/mailman/listinfo/puptcrit
Archives: http://www.driftline.org

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005