The Atlantic - Latest Comments in More On The Limits Of Umbrage

Re: More On The Limits Of Umbrage

StevenH — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 08:07:26 -0000

I think I disagree (with the original post) -- it seems to me that the function of blogs like this one is precisely to serve as a place to get worked up about, go Al Sharpton on, discuss and digest the myriad of small stupidities that constitute modern life. Should we take to the streets in huge numbers all across the nation's cities to protest the monkey cartoon? Probably not -- and we didn't. But should we spend some time trying to figure out this foolishness -- where it comes from and whether it matters anymore and if so, how much? Yes, absolutely. And thankfully, TNC and the Atlantic provide a place for us to do that.

Re: More On The Limits Of Umbrage

Mike — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 00:31:41 -0000

"might buy into the stereotypes depicted at the..."

Sorry. "... at the immediate, face value level," is what I intended to write.

Re: More On The Limits Of Umbrage

Mike — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 00:23:41 -0000

Not to go too far O/T, but I need to respond to the previous commenter on the New Yorker cartoon. The problem was that it ran at a time when Obama's chief rival was not supported by people who might buy into the stereotypes depicted at the, but rather was someone who was using the spectre of the political impact of those stereotypes to argue that we in the more, ahem, enlightened party couldn't entrust this golden political opportunity to restore our ideals in government to someone who faced these purportedly intractible prejudices. It was an unambiguous reinforcement therefore of the political case that was being made at the time by his chief rival, and it was possible to be made only because of the color of his skin. It put him in an impossible position, as evidenced when his statement that he had nothing to say about it was predictably made into a claim that he was responding in a manner typical for a sensitive 'wronged minority' as portrayed by those he would face later in the year. That was the problem with the New Yorker cover.

Re: More On The Limits Of Umbrage

Plantsmantx — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 22:13:44 -0000

So...under what circumstances do we go Al Sharpton on a fool?

Re: More On The Limits Of Umbrage

GAPeach7 — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:10:32 -0000

I do not need nor desire President Obama to provide me guidance on how I should feel about a thinly veiled rascist cartoon. Kudos to the President and First Lady for being able to shrug it off, that does not mean that I'm a wilting violet because I call bullshit when I see it.

Due to my outrage fatigue over the overall triflin-ness of the situation, I will simply co-sign with Marcus and DC Fem.

Re: More On The Limits Of Umbrage

CitizenE — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:21:33 -0000

First of all, as someone who has, I believe like just about everyone, inadvertantly crossed lines, on one hand ignorance is constantly piped into our brains and few can selfcensor themselves 100 percent of the time. Secondly in a free speech-free press nation, even intentionally ugly speech should be protected.

On the other hand, everyone comes into these things from a different context. I don't think that the cartoon, given its source bothered me as much as the unwillingness to acknowledge that some people have a legitimate historical grievance

with such a caricature, even if provoking that grievance was not the cartoonist's or the paper's intention. What would it cost to say, "really that wasn't my intent, but now that you bring the thing to my attention, I could see why you were antagonized."

Dreher complaining about the reaction to the cartoon, called it "Mau-mauing." When I contacted him and laid out the actual history of the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya, how the term has been used over time, he responded by laughing it off with a reference to an essay by Tom Wolfe using the phrase in the same manner and went on about thin skins, rather than simply acknowledging that the term at best was a cheap shot.

When Juan Williams compared Michelle Obama to Stokely Carmichael there was a lot of brouhaha here. Perhaps Juan Williams should be held to a higher standard of historical awareness than the New York Post; I don't really know. In the long term, both Obamas have a comforting way of making chump change of these petty detractors.

Perhaps the tone of a response should be more civil, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask the people who make a living from their public commentary to acknowledge history.

It's not that I am immune from making errors, but rather my purpose on earth is not to make cute points and money for it picking other people's scabs.

Re: More On The Limits Of Umbrage

Texas Girl — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:05:01 -0000

I suspect the chimp cartoon will seem more tasteless over time as well. When it was published, the attacking chimp was very fresh in everyone's mind. So there were legitimate arguments for the chimp attack and subsequent killing being the basis for the cartoon.

A few months or years down the road, that bit of pop culture 'news' will be forgotten, but the awful history of African Americans being portrayed/called/described as monkeys will not. Hence the cartoon might seem more egregious in the future than it does today.

All that being said, thanks for linking Jelani's post. I think coming around to recognizing that the president - any president - will be caricatured and made fun of for his characteristics is going to be a process for the country at large and perhaps the African American community in particular. People on all sides of the spectrum will probably retreat to old habits, protests, excuses, etc. one time and embrace the new situation the next. Change won't happen overnight.

Me personally, I'm taking my cues from my president. If he speaks out about something, I'll probably look at a situation more closely. Otherwise, I figure if it doesn't bother him, it probably shouldn't bother me too much either. But that's just me.

Re: More On The Limits Of Umbrage

DC Fem — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:00:28 -0000

marcus, your comparison calls to mind the need for greater diversity around the table. The cartoon you suggest would never have made it to print because enough people at the table would have said it was a bad idea, to put it mildly. The Post just proved that clearly there is no one in a management position at their paper who is conscious of old, racist stereotypes.

No, we shouldn't fight every little battle. That New Yorker cover was funny. But am I the only one who is fed up? They can insult Obama all the livelong day, but portraying him as a monkey made me wonder what exactly it is we as African Americans have to do to have our humanity recognized? The man is POTUS. We've crossed the largest, most difficult hurdle. Is that not enough for folks to at least drop the monkey, Sambo, and mammy stereotypes? I guess we'll still be stuck with pimp and welfare queen but really, 400 years is way too long to put up with being compared to primates.

Re: More On The Limits Of Umbrage

Scott II — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:56:34 -0000

Apparently a mayor out here in California just resigned for sending out a cartoon showing the White House with watermelons growing in front (the joke was something about how they're going to replace the easter egg hunt with watermelons).

He claimed he didn't realize the racial undertones of the watermelons. I'm not exactly sure I buy that, but then I grew up in Florida, not California, where the cartoonish version of racism was much more on display.

Re: More On The Limits Of Umbrage

sv — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:52:47 -0000

As a commenter said in an earlier thread, we need to stop stepping over dollars to pick up nickels.

BAM this blog is a metaphor factory!

The whole, stimulus bill --> president --> depicted as monkey --> racist interpretation of the cartoon seemed too farfetched, and had to be explained to me as I simply didn't get it. (Perhaps I would have if I was black - I've been denigrated in that way myself, but it's been far more prevalent against African-Americans.) It appears to be trying to make a connection between two unrelated news stories, and slapping a very weak joke (which I also didn't get at first) on top of it. Just my opinion.

Re: More On The Limits Of Umbrage

Persia — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:47:56 -0000

May I note that the Reagan/Alzheimers jokes, while still tasteless, seem far more tasteless in retrospect. We just thought he was absentminded!

Re: More On The Limits Of Umbrage

Byrd — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:47:39 -0000

There was a good West Wing episode that spoke to this as well -

Sam Seaborn comments that Ainsley Hayes looks good enough to make a good dog break his leash. He then spends the rest of the episode arguing that he's not a sexist. It was an offhand and complimentary remark not meant to be sexist, and in the end Ainsley goes off in a wonderful rant noting that fighting little battles takes away time and energy from the real fight at hand.

Troubling oneself with dead monkey cartoons that aren't funny takes away time from an honest discussion of real issues (and time that could be spend discussing funny cartoons).

Re: More On The Limits Of Umbrage

stonetools — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:47:25 -0000

Frankly, I liked the New Yorker cover cartoon. I almost fell off my chair laughing at it, because I instantly saw it for what it was: a parody of the various right-wing conspiracy theories. I was stunned when I saw LIBERALS objecting to the cover. My thought was that " These folks have ZERO sense of humor." I agree with TNC on this, there can be TOO MUCH frakkin outrage.

AS for the present cartoon, let me put this in a simple way: its a CARTOON, folks. During GWB's reign, there must have been a zillion cartoons portraying GWB as a chimp. anyone who objects to the present cartoon better have objected to all those cartoons too. Well, you didn't ? Didn't think so.

Re: More On The Limits Of Umbrage

Dewb — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:47:15 -0000

Completely off-topic: Post-Alanis, I've gotten used to seeing things called "irony" that really aren't, but when something that's pretty much the opposite of irony is labeled "irony of ironies" then I've gotta say something.

Re: More On The Limits Of Umbrage

LH — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:33:44 -0000

There's a difference between having thick skin and recognising what's worth getting upset about.

The former suggests being able to tolerate barbs that are rooted in truth, versus the latter, which goes to choosing one's battles.

After all of the anger, speechifying and marching, what's really changed?

The facts are that America has an African American president AND there are people who liken blacks to monkeys.

Re: More On The Limits Of Umbrage

robert powell — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:33:17 -0000

It was an excellent point well made in the first instance, and reinforced here.

In my view, umbrage is seriously deficient as a tactic. It tends to be associated with groups afflicted by self-perpetuating powerlessness. The fiasco over the Danish cartoons, fueled by umbrage, springs to mind.

Re: More On The Limits Of Umbrage

marcus — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:21:37 -0000

I agree but that cartoon was beyond the pale. It referenced:

1. NYPD's history of shooting Black men

2. Obama's ownership of the stimulus bill.

3. Black peoples depiction as monkeys.

I might have been born at night, but it wasn't last night.

imagine a cartoon referencing:

1. The Holocaust.

2. Jewish financiers

3. Bernie Madoff scandal

Re: More On The Limits Of Umbrage

Hill Rat — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:18:54 -0000

I agree with Mr. Cobb's sentiment, but I'm not with his characterization of going, ". . . Al Sharpton on some fool. . ."

The very nature of going "Al Sharpton" means that the issue at hand may be a tempest in a tea kettle or could be of questionable merit. To quote our distinguished blogger here, the MSM often uses, ". . . .a wild-eyed Sharpton to trivialize legitimate criticism."

Can we please leave Al Sharpton's processed 'do on the sidelines when grown folks are talking?

Re: More On The Limits Of Umbrage

BubbaDave — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:11:23 -0000

NickELs. A nickLE is a european woodpecker. A nickEL is a coin. You are not Matthew Yglesias-- please don't poach his homonym disfunction.

Re: More On The Limits Of Umbrage

br — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:02:20 -0000

Man, I hear you, but that Post cartoon was really terrible. Way worse than that New Yorker cover.