Last July I defended the New Yorker cover depicting Barack and Michelle Obama as Muslim extremists dancing in the White House. That post generated some blogosphere conversation. Allow me to quote myself:
The English actor and playwright Samuel Foote (1720-1777) was engaged in argument with Lord Sandwich in, where else, a pub. "Foote," said Lord Sandwich, "I have often wondered what catastrophe would bring you to your end, but I think you must die either by the pox, or on the gallows." Foote replied without missing a beat: "That would depend on whether I embrace your lordship's mistress, or your lordship's principles." Not that was a good English foote to the arse. There wasn't enough left of Sandwich to bury in a condom.
Most political humor does not rise to that level of cleverness. The New Yorker cover certainly did not. But if you want to strangle cleverness in its crib, you need only insist that all comedy be in good taste, and that it respect the sensitivity of the issues. The reaction to the New Yorker cover in the general press demonstrates that our political culture has become altogether too stuffy. It's high time some good wits let a little air out of our shirts.
The same issue is raised by the New York Post cartoon above, by Sean Delonas. It is an obvious reference to the chimpanzee mauling story I covered recently. But it ignited a storm of protest.
I stand my ground on basic principles. Political cartoons are almost offensive by definition, and if you want to encourage cleverness in political conversation, not to mention the freedom of journalists to give politicians a hard time, then you have to defend the Cartoonist's right to draw this one, and the Post's right to print it. The Post has to be protected against any coercive form of intimidation, including threats of violence or legal action. So far as I know, none of these has come into play.
On the other hand, protesters and political hacks like Al Sharpton are equally free to raise bloody Hell, and they have a case here.
The New Yorker Obama-as-Muslim extremist cover certainly poked at a sensitive topic. Because of his middle name and family ties, a lot of yahoos tried to use fears of radical Islam to discredit Barack Hussein Obama. But that was precisely the point of the cover, and it was an issue that needed to be aired. Moreover, it was an issue specific to Obama's person.
The New York Post cartoon was something else. Tonight I listened to Bob Zellner tell a story of the 1964 Civil Rights movement at The Moth Podcast. The Moth is a story telling outfit that has interesting people come on stage and tell interesting stories, without notes. Zellner was one of the last White members of the Students Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (before membership was closed to Whites). He describes a SNCC protest at a polling place, where they were insisting on the right of Black citizens to vote. A bunch of good ole boys showed up with a monkey. The monkey wore a sign reading: "I want to vote too!"
That, as we say, is the context. Comparing Black Africans to monkeys has a long history. The cartoonist who drew the Chimpanzee cartoon, and the Post editors that accepted it, might have taken this into account. Delonas' cartoon was not clever and it did not advance the conversation. It was merely in bad taste. I don't argue that there were any racist motives involved, just a lapse of good judgment. Like politicians, journalists are exposed to public censure. This was a bad piece of work, and I would not have printed it.
Comments