Recently, Rush Limbaugh created yet another minor flap by laughing when a caller reported that her daughter said Barrack Obama looked like Curious George. Afterwards, Limbaugh defended himself by claiming that he had no idea that Curious George was a monkey and that he had merely laughed to be polite. Not surprisingly, people have accused him of lying about that.
Perhaps he did not know about Curious George. In my own experience, I’ve met people who have been ignorant of cartoon characters I took to be cultural icons. So, this is not an impossibility. Then again, perhaps he made the claim and an apology to illustrate his claim that the upcoming election will, if Obama is the Democrats’ candidate, involve the most apologies from Republicans ever. Presumably he means that the Republicans will have to apologize constantly to Obama if their (allegedly) innocent claims are misconstrued.
Not surprisingly, it has been claimed that by laughing at the comparison, Limbaugh is showing racist tendencies (or at least approving of a racist comparison). Perhaps the comparison is racist-perhaps the intent was to compare Obama to a monkey to insult his ethnicity.
But perhaps not. After all monkey comparisons of George W. Bush are quite common. There is even a Curious George video of George W. Bush. Obviously, a comparison to a monkey is not flattering. But, as the George Bush examples show, it need not be a racist insult. Just because a person is insulted, it does not entail that that person has been the victim of a racial insult. What would be need to be shown is that the insult was, obviously enough, based on some factor of the person’s ethnicity.
While Limbaugh does so in a sarcastic manner, he does raise an interesting concern about Obama and criticism.
Since Obama is black, it is easy to regard criticisms and attacks on him as being racist. However, to assume that those who criticize him must be doing so from racist motivations is also racist. They might, as is probably the case with Limbaugh, be critical of him because they disagree with some of his views and beliefs. To hold back on criticism simply because Obama is black would itself be a form of racism. This would be because it would not be treating Obama like a white candidate-that is to say, subject to attack and criticism.
Obviously, this does not mean that any attack on or criticism of Obama cannot be racist. Obviously there can (and will) be such attacks and criticism. But it is important to distinguish between the attacks and criticisms that are racist and those that are not. The applies regardless of the candidate and not just to Obama, of course.
In the case of female candidates, such as Hillary Clinton, the distinction would be drawn between attacks and criticism that are based on sexism and those that are not.
In the case of a candidate’s age, similar comments apply. Some might argue that in the case of age, it is a relevant matter for criticism and attack. However, it is not the age that matters, but the relevant qualities. To be clearer, if one candidate is attacked because he is young, his youth is not really relevant. What would be relevant would be if he lacked the needed qualities of leadership because he has not had enough time to develop them.
There are also other attacks and criticisms that would be unacceptable-lest anyone think I’m just concerned about race, gender and age. But, going into those would stray beyond the focus of this blog.
People need to toughen up.
Since Obama is black, it is easy to regard criticisms and attacks on him as being racist.
But isn’t there a critical difference between portraying Bush and Obama as monkeys? In Obama’s case, it plays into centuries of racist stereotypes. In Bush’s case, it’s just silly. No politician should be immune from ridicule, but there’s a long history here that shouldn’t be overlooked.
Here’s just one example. In 1774, British “historian” James Long suggested that the chimpanzee did not “seem at all inferior in the intellectual faculties to many of the negroe race; with some of whom it is credible that they have the most intimate connexion and consanguinuity. The amorous intercourse between them may be frequent…” Also: the chimpanzee “has in form a much nearer resemblance to the Negroe race, than the latter bear to White men.” [As quoted in Winthrop Jordan’s White Over Black (1968).]
How can we ignore this heritage, which has been deeply integrated into Western racist ideologies?
The description of Obama as a monkey is racist. There’s no other word for it.
You have made a great point with this observation.
My daughter who is a flaming liberal said to me a few years ago,
“Well I wonder what Monkey Man is going to do next?”
I said who are you talking about?
She said, “You know Monkey Face George Bush!”
and we should never forget the Hitler name calling.
What I like about Bush and many conservatives is that
we hold ourselves to a higher calling.
“The best form of revenge is to not become like the wrong doer.”
Thanks for your words.
Come back and visit my blog when you have time.
at: http://riggword.wordpress.com/
Let me know what you think about the Resco scandal.
Is it going to stick with Obama?
Keep up the great blog.
In regards to Geaghan’s comment, there is the question about what exactly makes an insult racist.
The contention seems to be that if an insult has a racist history behind it, then it is a racist insult. On one hand this has a certain plausibility-after all, this would certainly “taint” the insult with racism. On the other hand, it seems important to take into account the context of the insult.
Suppose that the 12 year old girl who compared Obama to Curious George has no idea of the history of the use of the monkey comparison as a racist insult. Suppose she thinks Obama looks like Curious George not because he is black, but because she thinks his ears are like George’s (Curious, not Bush). In this case, I would conclude that the comparison is not racist.
It could be argued that an insult can become imbued with racism (as items can be imbued with magic in role-playing games) but this would seem to be a rather odd metaphysical claim.
More plausibly, it could be argued that when someone uses a monkey comparison with a black person, they are most likely acting from a racist intent. But, the intent would still be what makes it racist and not the insult itself.
Problem is that people are tough. If more people cared all would be be good.
Hugs not hate!
The contention seems to be that if an insult has a racist history behind it, then it is a racist insult.
Agreed: the context certainly matters. But if the context is the Rush Limbaugh show and the caller is an adult, then there’s a high likelihood that racism is at play on some level. Limbaugh claims he laughed to be polite, not knowing who Curious George is, and no doubt many will give him the benefit of the doubt. Personally, I’m not so sure he deserves it–but I’ll withhold judgment in the absence of more evidence.
Again, I don’t see what any of this has to do with Bush. If thousands of photographs were taken of you and me, one could no doubt find some expressions in which we looked a lot like a monkey. Maybe the image of Bush as a monkey sticks because of his behavior, not any physical characteristics outside these few photographs. It all seems a bit random and silly, but harmless.
Rigg says: What I like about Bush and many conservatives is that we hold ourselves to a higher calling.
Thanks for delivering my guffaw of the day! A “higher calling” apparently includes committing various war crimes, including waging an aggressive war in violation of international law (and specifically the Nuremberg Principles first enunciated by the United States).
Thanks for delivering my guffaw of the day! A “higher calling” apparently includes committing various war crimes, including waging an aggressive war in violation of international law (and specifically the Nuremberg Principles first enunciated by the United States).
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha—Leftist Hyperbole is always the best!