Kudos to the Huntsville Times
Posted by BrianThe Huntsville Times recently ran this political cartoon by Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist Pat Oliphant that shows Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama lecturing a black youth.
Naturally, since the cartoon included a black person coupled with sound advice, some have shouted racism. The Times published a letter to the editor from Dawn M. Suiter of Madison making such a claim. You can read another here on a site called “Halfrican Revolution.”
Such claims are amusing and ridiculous for numerous reasons. Most notably, back in February Oliphant said that of all the presidential candidates he tended “toward Obama.” If Oliphant is a “vile racist” I find it hard to beleive that he would “tend toward” a half black candidate while there were still plenty of lily white options to choose from. I think it is safe to say that at least 99% of racists don’t want a member of the opposite race to be president. We’ll get back to this topic later.
John Ehinger, the Times Editorial Page Editor, wrote one of his detailed position descriptions that he is known to do when controversy arises. Per his style, he carefully examined the issue. In the end he came up with the right answer:
So the obvious question: Would we use the cartoon if we had it to do over? I think we would. We can’t fall into the trap of refusing to publish anything that someone, somewhere might object to.
Kudos to the Huntsville Times for sticking to its guns in the face of unjustified shouts of racism.
Ehinger included thoughts from Madison County Commissioner Bob Harrison:
Harrison himself said he agreed with the underlying message - that people, including young black men, ought to behave in a more responsible manner - but he was concerned that the message may have gotten lost in racist stereotypes. The young black man, he noted, was depicted with oversized lips. (I note, too, that the character speaks in slang.)
Harrison is right that the underlying message is important, but I don’t believe that it would have been possible for Oliphant to get that message across without using stereotypes. In fact, I think that the intent of the cartoon was for Obama to be speaking to a stereotype.
What I found to be a bit ironic is that in the very same Sunday edition of the paper the Times ran this story about Obama’s attempts to reach out to people of faith. He spoke to the African Methodist Episcopal Church, “one of the nation’s largest and most politically active black denominations.”
[Obama] preached individual responsibility, saying he knew he risked criticism for “blaming the victim” by talking about the need for parents to help children with homework and turn off the television to pass on a healthy self-image to daughters, and teach boys both to respect women and “realize that responsibility does not end at conception.”
“… responsibility does not end at conception.” That is practically what the Oliphant created Obama character said in the cartoon. Obama must be a racist!
Could Oliphant have gotten his point across without using certain stereotypes? I don’t think so. It seems that the message Oliphant was trying to convey was not that all black youths are fathering children indiscriminately or don’t vote. If that were his point he would have drawn a very generic character with a dark hue. That would actually be a racist message because it would indicate that the primary reason the youth are behaving irresponsibly is because they are black, which is not the case. His point, I believe, was that the youths who subscribe to “thug culture” (for lack of a better term) are engaging in irresponsible behavior, are quick to call blacks who appear mainstream or are critical of them “white” in a derogatory manner, and are not exactly known as a swing voting bloc. He is merely identifying a subset of our culture and that identification required the use traits like large shoes and the backwards cap.
Similar observations about “thug” or “hip hop” culture have been made by numerous blacks over the years including Bill Cosby, as Ehinger pointed out, and Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Is it only racist for a white person (I assume Oliphant is white, else he wouldn’t face the cries of racism) to point out traits that are readily obvious about this group?
Moreover, Oliphant is a political cartoonist. They have to convey a multi-faceted message in a small space with a sketch and a few words. That medium requires use of stereotypes of all kinds, which carry with them lots of embedded meaning, in order to lay the groundwork for the reader to digest the cartoon’s message. It certainly isn’t limited to racial stereotypes. A cartoon of a golfer might show a person with horrific plaid pants and a funny hat. (Ok, so that is my stereotype of golfers.) Plus, these cartoonists have to be edgy in order to maintain their relevance.
Again, congratulations to the Huntsville Times for not relenting to the predictable, knee jerk cries of racism.
Related content:
July 7th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
[...] Flashpoint: Kudos to the Huntsville Times [...]
July 9th, 2008 at 9:42 am
The Oliphant Cartoon is racist.
Oliphant has the right draw racist cartoons.
The Huntsville Times has the right to print racist cartoons.
People who object to the racist cartoon have the right to object.
People who like the racist cartoon have the right to like it.
God Bless America!
July 9th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
You are the last person who has the standing to level accusations of racism. I like how you didn’t justify your belief that it is racist.
At least you understand that this is a free country - that is a start.
July 14th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Firstly, thanks very much for the link. We always welcome new readers. Secondly, if this cartoon has been unjustifiably called racist, might I ask what your criteria would be for an actual racist cartoon? Is it non-racist as long as it stops short of showing Klansmen burning crosses, or a cartoon version of a lynching? Where is the line, and how would one cross it?
As for Oliphant’s “need” to use stereotypes, there are degrees of charicature. Any political cartoonist is going to use readily identifiable “types” to a certain extent, in order to tell his readers what the subject of the cartoon is. But when you move past making an identifiably young black man and make him a black man with stereotypically large lips, holding a basketball and wearing expensive-looking sneakers, you are going beyond “necessary” character type-casting and venturing into overt racism. Further, one of the most offensive aspects of the cartoon was the reference to Obama “talking white”, as if the ideas of personal responsibility are intrinsically white and alien to the black community. That simply is not true, as can be seen by considering the setting of Obama’s speech: in an all-black church.
I welcome any and all debate on topics like this. Drop by the blog, leave a comment, tell me how wrong I am.
Incidentally, before anyone starts to see me as another “angry black guy”, you should know that I’m a white man with a professional degree (and it isn’t in sociology)
July 14th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Words, as they say, mean things. From dictionary.com:
I don’t think either of those definitions apply here. Like I said, Oliphant wouldn’t “tend toward” Obama if he thought whites were superior to blacks or if he hated them. Period.
Furthermore, if Oliphant was insensitive to blacks then he would have included Obama, who identifies as a black man, in his stereotype. He didn’t because he doesn’t feel the stereotype applies to all blacks, which he would have to for him to even be characterized as an indiscriminate bigot.
The big lips, I will submit were unnecessary, but don’t cross the line of racism. Tacky, yes. As for the basketball and expensive-looking sneakers I don’t get your point. Are you claiming that the thug culture youths he (Obama) was lecturing don’t play basketball or buy expensive shoes. I assure you that he is not the first to point out their penchant for unnecessarily expensive shoes.
The “talking white” quip was not intended to imply that personal responsibility is alien to the black community. I would argue that it is more of a reference to the tendency for some blacks, again primarily in the thug culture, to lash out at fellow blacks whom they feel are too cozy with whites. This is often manifested in the form of calling them an “Uncle Tom.” One of my best friends growing up was a black guy who is one of the smartest guys I’ve ever known. The two of us constantly competed in academic competitions and what not (ok, that sounds pretty dorky). I distinctly remember other guys mocking him for being “too white.” Presumably they would have preferred him to languish in their studies as they did. (Fortunately he did not give in to their baiting and went on to get an engineering degree and work at a major corporation.) So Oliphant’s choice of words can’t be offensive, in my opinion, because I’ve seen similar language used by irresponsible kids before.
But, to hammer home a point, Oliphant cannot be considered racist since he clearly doesn’t hate black people and in his work, which is supposed to be provocative, does not exclusively (or even frequently) use black stereotypes when representing a black person.
September 21st, 2008 at 2:37 pm
[...] noting they do not hand out apologies every time someone has their feelings hurt over a cartoon (HERE). When it comes to arrogance this is the most telling feature. Christians have so thoroughly [...]
September 21st, 2008 at 3:46 pm
[...] the Post, noting they do not hand out apologies every time someone has their feelings hurt over a cartoon. When it comes to arrogance this is the most telling feature. Christians have so thoroughly decided [...]