Blackface Joe: Five Grievances

UPDATE (2006-09-21 06:55EST): The latest: The Color Line and the Perceptual Gulf and A Chasm Illuminated.

UPDATE (2006-10-03 16:14EST): Still more Zukiness at An Uncanny (Media Tactic) Resemblance and A Chasm Accentuated.

Here are 5 problems I have with Blackface Joe:

(1) Visual Impact: Tell me honestly, if you empty your mind and look at the picture fresh, as most people will, who's the first target of visual mockery? Black folks or Lieberman? I'd argue that the image's raw, visual, stereotypical mockery of blacks handily outweighs any secondary intellectualizations that might be layered on top. Now I'm sure some white Americans view the stylized humiliation and emasculation of African Americans, and other people of color, as a yawn-worthy cultural norm, easily overlooked in the service of an important liberal political campaign. But I'm not down with that. I think progressives should energetically analyze and criticize linguistic, conceptual, and visual constructions which reinforce the cultural norms of white supremacy. This isn't "political correctness"; white supremacy isn't a fabrication of the "PC police" or any humorless leftist conspiracy. Political correctness never lynched anybody; human beings who emerged from a white supremacist culture did, and do. Crying PC is a scant excuse for the intellectual and spiritual laziness that underlies privilege. Blackface is only funny if lynching is funny. I'll welcome that day; but we're not there yet.

(2) Crossed Metaphor: The central satirical point of Blackface Joe is to highlight the fakeness of Lieberman's overtures to black voters. In other words: Lieberman's attempts to portray himself as a civil rights champion are as fake as the make-up on a blackface minstrel. Here's the metaphorical problem: Minstrels applied make-up in order to mock African Americans, whereas Lieberman's act is meant to appeal to African Americans (get it? blackface is for white consumption only). Lieberman's attempts might exude a clueless "old white dude" stiffness about them, but it's not blackface, any more than Lamont's overtures are. I think the metaphor gets its own internal logic crossed and badly misses the mark, leaving only the decontextualized visual impact as the persistent message.

(3) Imprecise Framing: As usual, Bill Clinton's presence creates more confusion than clarity. He's the "white" foil, arm in arm with Lieberman's blackface. The superimposed sunglasses appear to be an effort to make him more "ethnic" or "soulful" (a la Blues Brothers), but that's where I get lost. What exactly are we to gather from this extended metaphor? Bill Clinton is Joe Lieberman's soulful slave master? I don't even know what that means. So what are we supposed to resent: Joe's fakeness or Bill's being a slave master? Again, the metaphor's essential sloppiness leaves the viewer with little more than the raw fact of the visual impact. It's hard to avoid the feeling that Clinton has been spared the blackface treatment simply because the artist holds Clinton in higher esteem than Lieberman. In this sense, blackface becomes a cheap slander, like drawing a mustache on a girl; and as surely as the mustache on the girl is intended to make her ugly and ridiculous, the blackface on Lieberman appears intended to do the same.

[ UPDATE (2006-09-26 22:45EST): Darkblack has offered this explanation: "Clinton's black, opaque glasses signify that he is 'blind' to how he is being used, as I made clear at FDL over a month ago. A side effect here is that he, in real life, no longer suffers that 'affliction'." I don't know about you, but the mere presence of dark shades doesn't make Clinton look blind to me. Furthermore, I seriously doubt Clinton was "blind" to what Lieberman was doing; he's a slick operative who understands the political game as well as anyone. Basically, even with darkblack's clarification, I believe the image suffers from Imprecise Framing.]

(4) Gratuitous Invocation: Of course, there are instances when it makes complete sense for a fearless artist to invoke explosive, culturally-loaded imagery in the service of an ambitious artistic objective. But my feeling is that the offensiveness of the material should be justified by the loftiness of the artistic enterprise. In other words, I think you can justifiably satirize the Bible if you're writing "The Last Temptation of Christ"; you can justifiably satirize the Koran if you're writing "The Satanic Verses"; but in the case of Blackface Joe, the argument for risky satire is, shall we say, less clear. The upside just doesn't live up to the downside. From a story-telling perspective, the shock value overwhelms any intended plot development. Obviously this is a subjective measure, but it's part of my frank explanation; realistically I could have let this image slide if it accomplished something more; but it didn't. That makes its offensive imagery gratuitous.

In fairness to the PC-haters and other erstwhile champions of controversial imagery, I should note that on one level they're right: cultural expression should not be policed in any way. I don't mean to suggest that offensive imagery should be censored. As far as I'm concerned, you should say and publish any damn thing you choose. And then I'll say and publish any damn thing I choose about what you said. Don't blame me if your own foolishness sticks to you. Free speech means freedom to speak like an idiot, I suppose. Free speech isn't at issue in this discussion; the substantive meaning and value of a specific image is.

(5) Flippant Defense: The last thing that rubbed me the wrong way about the whole Blackface Joe episode was the cavalier lack of contrition from its originators. I don't for a moment believe that either Jane Hamsher or darkblack are racists; I'm just pissed that they don't get what's so wrong about what they did. Jane's apology came straight out of the "asshole boyfriend non-apology" book of patronizing dismissals: "I apologize that you're upset, though if you're upset you're probably my political enemy". Wow, that brush-off makes Arianna's Clooney-triggered soul-searching look positively spiritual.

Thankfully, the bottom line remains: Lamont won. But as long as Lamont's supporters, and other progressives, refuse to confront the uncomfortable implications of Blackface Joe, the progressive vehicle won't be firing on all cylinders.

Comments

[lotus]

Good onya, Kai!

[Jon]

Kai,

You really nailed it on the head, especially this: "I could have let this image slide if it accomplished something more; but it didn't. That makes its offensive imagery gratuitous." Your reasoning behind why it fails to accomplish anything is also solid. The metaphor simply doesn't work.

I am stunned that anyone would think this an image like this is remotely helpful. Powerful images can be used to powerful effect. In this case, it is just powerfully stupid.

[Vincent]

Kai here is what bugs me about this issue. Not withstanding the fact that it appears that some white progressives seem to not have the cultural sensitivity and discernment to respectfully listen to why people of color might find "Blackface Joe" offensive, I am underwhelmed that folks who have a "sophisticated" understanding on the use of the this mighty medium would post such a sloppy, ill-conceived, and confusing metaphor. What makes it worse is that the folks who are claiming that those who question the editorial decision-making and resulting content are PC and/or humorless smacks of an attempt to choke discourse. Are we progressives or not? I thought we were about catalyzing discourse.

Finally, if we are to mature as a society that can get beyond our current racial issues, everybody needs to speak their mind and respect those who respond in kind. So, if someone puts up Blackface Joe. God bless them! That is their right. If someone calls them out on a reasoned and intellectual basis, then that should trigger respectful and thoughtful dialogue. Claiming folks are PC or humorless is not respectful or thoughtful. The discourse should be fervent and fertile. That is how mature people deal with race.

Kai, speak your mind and thank you for that. The fact that I agree with you is irrelevant. It is the discourse and dialogue that counts. I would love to read intelligent responses that advance the discourse from the "PC Haters".

waiting in peace,

v

ps. It seems I am harsh it is only because I respect progressives, dialogue, and our opportunity.

[Kai]

Hi lotus,

Thanks for your support both here and at FDL, where you witnessed firsthand the backlash that this post generated. FDL HQ simply doesn't want this issue to be discussed.

One FDL reader emailed me saying: "I want you to know there are many people who absolutely agree with you. I'm sorry you were attacked so viciously (what's new), I'm very proud of you for standing in your truth and your power. No, contrary to what they claim, they have not allowed any thorough discussion of this, it gets shut down immediately ... I've dissented or refuted something before and had the comment section closed."

It's not a good sign for FDL that they're becoming more concerned with the appearance of a united front than in a free-wheeling populist examination of substantive issues. The logic with regard to Blackface Joe seems to be that we shouldn't talk about it until after the November elections; until then, it only helps Lieberman. But it seems to me that not talking about it helps the right-wing by giving the appearance of a hypocritical lack of contrition on the part of Lamont's supporters. Plus, there's no such thing as a convenient time to speak the truth.

Anyway, see you round.

Peace.

[lotus]

Amen and amen again, Kai.

The only "silver lining" I can find in yesterday's episode is that it brought me here to Zuky and now I not only can find my way back but will!

v -- whoever you are: well said.

[Kai]

Jon,

Thanks for your comment. I'm glad you find the image as "powerfully stupid" (hehe) as I do. And what's worse is the unwillingness of so many "white liberals" to fully deal with it: "Jane apologized, we've all moved on, get over it". Moved on? We've "all moved on" from America's history of racial divisions? Hmmm...and these same liberals jump up and down with partisan glee when they catch right-wingers letting slip things like "tar baby" and "macaca", pointing fingers and crying racism. Not cool. Don't get me wrong, I do believe the Republican Party tends to attract more of the vile pointy-hat racists than the Dems, but let's not pretend that racism only lives in America's right wing. It exists in the very roots of American culture and must be excised across the spectrum.

Anyway, I hope all's well in Ohio!

Cheers.

[Kai]

Yo Vince,

Nice post. I think you're exactly right that a fundamental part of progressivism is "catalyzing discourse" rather than suppressing it. I guess that's kind of the point of this post. Of course I don't want to say anything to hurt the Lamont campaign, but I don't think that means we should become too politically cautious to speak our minds.

And no, you're not coming across too harshly, just loud and clear. :-)

See ya round.

[ZC]

Thanks, Kai, for taking the time and energy to shed some light on an issue that most of us would rather not look at. I found your comments particularly insightful, and your grievances justified.

What struck me about this cartoon:

The intention is misguided. What is communicated (either consciously or not) is a message of lashing out, of a juvenile reaction to a situation that cannot be controlled. It's as if someone on the schoolyard has no other recourse but to say, "Well, Joe's a racist!" Which then prompts a discourse of, "Is not!", "Is too!". This achieves nothing but the venting of frustrated emotions which leads us nowhere.

The Message is confused. "The kiss" worked so well because it reveals a truth about Joe and where he is coming from. No matter what Joe did he couldn't shake the truth of "the kiss". This cartoon, however, lacks any sort of deep revelation of Joe's character, and the lack of power to the message leaves it wide open to ridicule, misunderstanding, and just plain confusion.

In fact, if the point was to show how Lieberman was NOT sympathetic to African-Americans, then this image entirely missed the mark. It puts Joe squarely within the same camp as blacks, as someone who is equally oppressed. But if what they were trying to say is that Joe is pandering to blacks for their votes, a more appropriate image would be a wolf in sheep's clothing. Meaning, some kind of image that shows he knows he's leading you on, but is praying upon the innocense of black voters not to know he’s conning them. However, it certainly does not portray this message.

The image is ignorant. I felt in my gut there was something wrong about it, but couldn't put my finger on it. And, like most white people I just didn't want to deal with it. It's gnarly and uncomfortable. Fortunately being in an inter-racial relationship makes sure I couldn't get away from it. So I found this site which helped explain some of the implications of the blackface image.

From ColorBlind
http://colorblind.typepad.com/the_colorblind_society/blackface/
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
Whiteface?

"Certainly, the power structure and image of whites is extremely favorable compared to blacks. When one mocks a black as a low life or ignoramus, there is a strong stigma associated with that already. The mockery adds to an already powerful stereotype. With whites, this is not true. Whites collectively or in general are not seen as ignorant or lowlifes. There is also a long and ubiquitous history of mocking blacks in the US. Portrayals have been in children books, songs, radio and TV programs, movies, advertisements, product labels, etc. This part of western culture has even leaked into other societies, as anyone who has visited asia can attest. Except for a couple of standup comedians, whites are generally not mocked."

Let's hope that we can all learn from the experience, with a healthy does of self-reflection and willingness to face the thorny issues it raises. These are the strengths of those with progressive views: we are strong enough to face the and clear-minded enough to do the right thing about it.

[Temple3]

http://temple3.wordpress.com/2006/09/17/im-not-a-racist-you-sure-about-that/

Aside from the trends I found in db's work, I believe one of the reasons for the defensive nature of the response is tied to "intelligence." This cadre of folks pride themselves on being hyper-intelligent. This specific example reflects historical ignorance. That is embarassing - if you perceive yourself as having all the answers to all the questions from all the people all the time.

I maintain that I can't say DB is racist, but I have absolutely no doubt he is a practicing white supremacist. That can be read as "eurocentric/whitecentric trafficker in anti-black imagery operating without an organic context." Or it can be read as something else. Nonetheless, the bottom line is that his experience of black/african cultural phenomena and history is either woefully truncated or non-existent. He is an outsider (whose intentions remain unknown) who made an amateur's mistake - but he retains the arrogance of an intellectual/artist who lays the blame for his mistake at the level of interpretation. To suggest the cause of the conflagration is subjective is to blatantly attempt to reinforce the hegemony of white interpretation. It's absurd. But, it's consistent with the rest of his work.

[Sunrunner]

Hi Kai,

I am so sorry that I did not see this post in the midst of this sorry episode (I found my way here via My Private Cabash etc).

I was one of the people who did speak up strongly in fdl comments against this image --repeatedly--when I saw it on HuffPo, and begged Christy or someone to get it down. I will also say that I was terribly disheartened at Jane's non-apology. In the end, I figured that she was not going to "get" it in public, and hoped that she would learn the lesson privately. I should also say that I have noticed that since then, almost all of my comments have been ignored (classic jr high school in-group, out-group stuff).

When I saw trex's horrible post re Liza Sabater, and the vitriol spewed by Jane and all the other "firepoodles" in the ensueing comments, I realized that I had been too hopeful and that she (and Christy for that matter--who could only whine that her peanut was sick and she had housepainters all over her house when many people pleaded with her to get in touch with Jane and do something about that image, and omigosh, it was such an honor to meet a former president) did not deserve the benefit of the doubt She doesn't "get" it. Neither do many of the other poodles who frequent fdl.

Anyway -- all this is to say, thank you for having the courage to speak out about this. And I am glad to have found your blog.

One more thought on the image. What I saw was an unconscious unveiling of racist attitudes. By putting Joe in blackface, likening him to a minstrel whose sole purpose is to entertain at the whim of *their betters,* that is whites (like he does do with Bush). The overt rationale is that Joe is pretending to be friendly to black folks (which is true), but it is really saying -- unconsciously --that he is servile *like black folks*. Which is profoundly racist. Sort of like Allen taking offence when a reporter asked him about his Jewish heritage. (How dare you compare me, a kkk-wannabe with "those" people).

[Kai]

Temple3: I appreciate your comments here and on your blog. I especially like your insight that intellectual pride is a major component of white liberal defensiveness on such matters, though I'd add that moral purity plays a role as well. I'll shortly write a new post including excerpts of your analysis.

Sunrunner: Yeah, that was a bad day at FDL (I never did see what Christy's "peanut" had to do with it -- presumably we all have demanding personal lives, not just Christy). Leading up to that day, I'd been working as a volunteer on the Lamont campaign and indeed enjoying Jane's enthusiastic posts on FDL; but as soon as she started digging into Lieberman on behalf of African Americans, I started getting a bad feeling. Knowing how viciously Jane goes after her foes, and also how white liberals tend to at least occasionally miss the mark when presuming to speak on behalf of people of color, it just felt like a recipe for disaster. Then Blackface Joe happened and my concerns were realized, to an unbelievable extent. And the fallout from it has been even more illuminating. As we saw this weekend, this issus continues to resonate in the minds of many progressives, especially people of color.

Anyway, I'm glad you found Zuky too, come visit again!

Peace.

[belledame222]

Late, but this is terrific, exactly what was needed. You took it as they -wanted- it to be read and looked at it critically, and thus nailed exactly what the problem is. It's a real sign of seriousness to me when someone does this: takes the other side's POV in the best possible light as -they- want to represent it, and take it apart from there. Yeah, okay, intentions were good, lord, please don't let 'em be misunderstood. Well, they were, and for very good reasons: as you say, it really, really, didn't work. Which, when this happens, the -smart- thing to do is acknowledge this, and apologize. It is true that the (current gang of) -Republican- thing to do has been to never ever EVER acknlowledge -any- sort of mistake; but you see, you have a different target audience here; for the most part we are -not- people who see mistakes, honestly acknowledged and seriously addressed in the future, as a sign of weakness. And, also, more important, we aren't, or at least have a lot more invested in thinking we aren't, motherfucking racists.

You could've had a V-8, firedoglake. You fucked up.

[belledame222]

>The overt rationale is that Joe is pretending to be friendly to black folks (which is true), but it is really saying -- unconsciously --that he is servile *like black folks*.>

oooh. You know what: you're right. And now i am wondering how on the level to take that rationale; how unconscious was this really? shrug. doesn't matter, I guess. But yeah: a much more straightforward reading of this image would be: Lieberman="house nigger" (to the Republican party, to his "masters.")

mind you I still don't quite know where Clinton comes in in this context. as you say: I think it may just be because Clinton is held in higher esteem; and yet...the glasses. Is that like a subtler way of conveying the blackface? It would make sense, according to a lot of political perspectives. Clinton has been accused of being a sellout in many many ways, to many many people; not least of all to his supposed constituents. And yet, and yet. Clinton is more or less the "good guy" in this particular Democratic worldview, apparently. So...

Overall the one message that is clear from this image is: SELLOUT. But who's selling out to whom, here? That's not at -all- clear. And maybe there's a good reason for that.

yeah, I think perhaps the author is...conflicted. i've seen some of his other work as well; it reminds me of...someone I once knew.

[belledame222]

"as Kai says," I should have said. several different "yous" in that last post, I realize, ending with fdl itself.

[Elayne Riggs]

Thanks to Belledame's post today, I'm seeing this post of yours from before I added you to my blogroll. :) I definitely agree with you on (1) (I hadn't even noticed it was Lieberman the first time I saw it), (3) and particularly (5).

[Kai]

Belledame222 & Elayne: Thanks for your comments. Never too late to join the party round here. ;-D

[Rob Schmidt]

I don't find the Clinton image hard to understand. Clinton's been made to look cool with the shades. It signifies his street cred, his being down with the brothers. Whether you buy it or not, he's widely considered to be the first "black" president--i.e., the first white president to genuinely care about African Americans.

Beside Clinton, Lieberman's been made to look smaller and less hip, like a goofy kid brother. His attempt to gain credibility, akin to Bill's shades, is the blackface routine. So Clinton's efforts to reach out are (relatively) sincere while Lieberman's are transparently phony. Clinton may be a poser, but Lieberman is a fraud.