A poster featuring a Joker like modification of Obama’s face has been appearing in Los Angeles and on the internet. In addition to the face, the poster has the word “socialism.” As is to be expected, Rush Limbaugh has also weighed in on this, prompting responses from various bloggers.
Apparently, some folks are calling this a racist attack. However, there seems to be nothing about the poster that clearly seems racist. Unless, of course, any sort of critical response to a black person is automatically racist. That is, of course, absurd. After all, to say that any criticism of a black person is racist would seem to entail that there can never be an warranted criticism of what a black person thinks or does. For example, this would make an argument between a black and white philosopher over something like the nature of universals a racist act. After all, the white professor would be critical of the view he disagreed with.
Naturally, it can be pointed out that the Joker poster is not on par with a bit of philosophical argumentation. After all, it is a fairly harsh image that seems to be trying to convey the idea that Obama is on par with the Joker. That is, a super villain out toburn the world.
True, this is a rather harsh and hyperbolic image. The idea that it seems to be intended to convey does not seem to be a fair one, hence it can also be regarded as unwarranted in addition to being extreme.
However, it does not seem to be racist. After all, Obama is being compared to the Joker and this has no racial baggage at all. While the Joker is white (and actually the color white in classic Batman), there are no racial connections associated with the Joker-at least as far as my memory of Batman movies and comics goes. The poster does not seem to be attacking any aspect of Obama’s race. Rather, it seems to be an attack on what the creator takes to be Obama’s socialist plans.
Now, it could be said that it is racist because Obama is being presented in “whiteface.” However, I suspect that the creator of the poster picked the Joker because he is a convenient symbol of destruction and chaos, which is what some folks think of Obama. This is, I believe, no more racist than Jon Stewart constantly casting Dick Cheney as Darth Vadar.
Rush Limbaugh got into the game by asserting that the Joker thing fits Obama because Obama admits to wearing a mask. Rush says:
Obama has admitted to wearing masks. In “Dreams from My Father”: (paraphrasing) “It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned. People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied; they were relieved, such a pleasant surprise to find a well mannered young black man who didn’t seem angry all the time.” This is his tactic for fooling white people. This is the mask.
In terms of assessing this, there are a couple points worth considering. First, there is a huge leap from the fact that Obama learned to act in ways that did not scare white folks to the claim that Obama is like the Joker. After all, the Joker acts in ways calculated to create fear in people. Second, while Obama “wore masks”, it is also true that everyone seems to do this. We have a mask for work, a mask for our grandparents, a mask for our drinking buddies, a mask for our spouse, and so on. The world, it has often been argued, almost never sees a person’s true self. As such, if Obama is thus like the Joker, then we all are. Third, the Joker doesn’t wear a mask. The classic Joker had his skin and hair color changed due to a swim through chemicals. The latest Joker seems to just wear makeup (or maybe not-the movie does not make it clear).
So, my view is that the poster is not itself racist and Obama is not the Joker, or even Joker like.
“Some men aren’t looking for anything logical.
They can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.” – Alfred, Bruce Wayne’s Butler
He did fool the world into thinking he wasn’t a racist even though he hung with Rev Wright and immediately jumped to the black man’s defense without knowing the facts with Gates, or that he wasn’t an extremist, even though he broke bread with Ayers, or that somehow his far-left voting record wouldn’t translate into far-left policy–like flushing trillions of dollars down the drain in order to federally co-opt failing companies or “reforming” 1/7th of America’s economy my telling patients and doctors how they ought do business.
Bravo, I say!! Bravo!
But I do agree we all wear masks. Obama’s mask, however–the mask of the proto-progressive–has cost us dearly and will cost us even more. The one thing–and the idealists will never like it or admit it–that America had as an advantage over the rest of the world is the juggernaut of economic might. Like it or not, it made our lives good and it won our wars. But Obama wants to copy nations that don’t live as well or win any wars: All of Europe.
Well we all have a face
That we hide away forever
And we take them out and
Show ourselves
When everyone has gone
Some are satin some are steel
Some are silk and some are leather
They’re the faces of the stranger
But we love to try them on ~~Billy Joel, The Stranger
Obama wants to copy nations that don’t live as well”
Isn’t that relative? And besides, economic indicators are not the “be all, end all” for determining well being (you sound like a Marxist, actually).
Physical, mental, social and environmental factors also contribute to one’s “living well.” That isn’t to say capitalism doesn’t help, but to finish your quote:
“Obama wants to copy nations that don’t live as well or win any wars: All of EUROPE”
So, to quote BusinessWeek: “Good health may be the key to happiness, but money helps open the door. Wealthier countries, such as Switzerland (2) and Luxembourg (10) scored high on the index. Not surprisingly, most African countries, which have little of either; scored poorly. Zimbabwe, which has an AIDS rate of 25%, an average life expectancy of 39, and an 80% poverty rate, ranked near the bottom at 177. Meanwhile, the conflict between the Hutus and Tutsis gave fellow Africans in Burundi, ranked 178, even less to smile about, despite their having a slightly lower poverty rate of 68%.
Capitalism, meanwhile, fared quite well. Free-market systems are sometimes blamed for producing unhappiness due to insecurity and competition, but the U.S. was No. 23 and all the top-ranking European countries are firmly capitalist—albeit of a social-democratic flavor.”
But, you know, I’m sure BusinessWeek is just part of the liberal media that’s trying to make us all socialists.
I live in Europe. Germany to be exact. Trust me: They don’t live as well and their hospitals are not nearly as good.
But you seem to have made my argument for me.
Luxembourg? The country with the 54 billion dollar GDP? and half a million citizens? That Luxembourg?
Maybe we should give any of those countries on the list a shot at being the defender of the free world for just a few months and we’ll see how their economic power holds up. Hey–the peeps in Luxembourg make a ton of money per capita–let’s see, 38,000 annually x 400,000 people…carry the 1…= Wow! One armored platoon of American M1 tanks!
Let’s look at the countries that count: Britain, Germany and France. Germany has experienced a catastrophic failure in it’s economic system that makes America’s look like we only bought a few too many scratch tickets. And I would not say that the average European lives better than the average American. France and Britain–not quite as bad but nothing to brag about.
But back on track here: So are you saying he ISN’t trying to copy Europe?
Or are you saying he is, and that doing so is a good thing?
Oh–and the magazine’s title sould be a clue that BusinessWeek is probably in favor of capitalism. So am I.
Here’s the link to the BusinessWeek article http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/oct2006/gb20061011_072596.htm
“Oh–and the magazine’s title sould be a clue that BusinessWeek is probably in favor of capitalism. So am I.”
I know – that’s why I included it.
“But back on track here: So are you saying he ISN’t trying to copy Europe?
Or are you saying he is, and that doing so is a good thing?”
I’m saying neither: I’m simply questioning the way you framed the issue (it seemed a bit reductive).
Well, what do you think about government health care then?
Union SEIU thugs beat up a black man selling ‘Don’t Tread On Me’ flags.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/08/tea-party-protesters-attacked-1-man.html
Where is Obama on racism? Oh, yeah, it isn’t racism or a hate crime because this black was a conservative.
Really? You don’t think the fact that Obama was friends with Henry Gates Jr. and that it was already all over the news (BEFORE Obama commented) because Gates is an academic celebrity had something to do with it? You’re certain he’s just avoided commenting on this person that nobody knows because he’s a conservative?
Yes. I have never heard of Gates before(lmfao academic celebrity?) but I have heard of Kenneth Gladney(his mother was in politcs). Academic celebrity? that is rich. I must not be in that circle.
You know Kenneth Gladney (who doesn’t even exist on Wikipedia), but you don’t know Gates? He’s known as “The nation’s most famous black scholar.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/23/AR2009072302632.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
You’re trying to deflect from the original point. Do you really think that Obama made a point of addressing Gates (after a huge puff-puff over a black scholar who has made a CAREER out of discussing historical discrimination, and is all over the media, and is known to be FRIENDS with the president) but has purposefully avoided commenting on Gladney because he’s a conservative? That’s a stretch. I don’t see that connection. Are you sure you’re not letting your politics make that conclusion?
I just know what I see. I’m asking you now why he stated racism(the wrong way) in the first case and not at all(definitely racism) in the second. So, why do you think it has happened this way?
Now you’re equivocating. Your conclusion was that Obama didn’t respond because Gladney was a conservative. Now you’re claiming that you only know what you see, which suggests that it’s merely an observation you’ve made. Well, there’s a big different between an inductive leap and an observed event – one is a theory and the other is empirical data.
As for your question, it’s almost unanswerable. I can’t presume to know what Obama’s motive is for every decision, but I’ll bite anyways. Obama didn’t respond for the simple reason why most people don’t respond to every recorded case of sexism, or reverse discrimination – because it happens all the time, and the only ones politicians respond to appear to be those that receive the attention of the media. Now, maybe you want to make a case against the media, saying that they’re ignoring Gladney because he’s a conservative, which may be true, but that certainly doesn’t say anything about Obama’s motive for ignoring Gladney. The fact of the matter is we don’t know, so, for you to presume that you know exactly why is highly questionable.
My own assumption is this: Obama and his staff are busy people who already wasted a lot of time with the Gates issue (which was a waste of time, in my opinion). I agree with you – the Gates issue did go the wrong way. However, there is no reason to believe that Obama is avoiding this because Gladney is a conservative. I think there’s a simpler reason why: who gives a fuck?
Well I agree other than if nobody cares then why do you?
I’ll admit that maybe he does not know. Fair enough. I just think that racism gets tagged way too much to the right. When things do not go the left’s way the same results. I think racism as a whole is blown way out of proportion in modern America. I think it is used as a manipulation tool way too much to get the upper hand politically, socially…etc.
Even electing a black president isn’t enough for some in this country. Too much to be gained….
Why DO so many issues become about race/sex? If we were all asexual mulattos, maybe we’d all be better off.