Let's Talk About Race, Baby!

Last week, Baratunde Thurston and I appeared on MSNBC together to talk about the infamous NY Post chimp cartoon. Since then, we have been having the national conversation about race that Eric Holder wanted us to (he didn't call us directly, we just inferred from his comments).

Baratunde came up with the idea of doing a series of You Tube videos on this so that we can explain ourselves a little more fully. He did Part I over the weekend. You can check it out by clicking here.

We agree on a lot, but our differences lie in what we emphasize. And I am emphasizing reaching out to all Americans, including and especially white Americans. If the NY Post cartoon is racist, then it's white Americans that we have to convince of that case. And ironically, calling it racist is the worst way to do that.

For some strange and interesting reason, many white folks I've talked to will defend the cartoon as if they drew it. They keep saying the same thing, "I don't see what all the fuss is about." It is my point below in Part II of this You Tube conversation that we should help them see:

I know it seems a little hokey but we are also asking you to join the conversation here. I have shared this series with my friends. And so far they are largely on Baratunde's side (why am I not surprised?). They think this cartoon is so clearly racist that it passes my reasonable doubt test. Based on reactions I have gotten from others, I'm not so sure. But I'm learning something with every conversation we have on this topic.

Most importantly, sharing these perspectives gets us closer to a common vision. I almost think this national conversation thing is starting to work. So, to paraphrase Salt-n-Pepa, let's talk about race, baby!

Watch The Young Turks Here

Comments

[katermc]

I haven't read all the other comments, so I may be repeating something already said. I'm 61 years old. I'm white. When I saw this cartoon, I was horrified. I grew up in the 1950's and I've heard all the disgusting names for black people. What I saw, first, was that these cops had killed a chimp and, immediately, I associated it with racist beliefs about black people. What was particularly horrifying to me was that a newspaper owned by a major capitalist, Rupert Murdoch, published a drawing of two police officers assassinating a black president (having lived through the MLK assassination and the Kennedy assassinations). I didn't hear anyone use the word assassination until perhaps three days after the cartoon was published and that was Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! If the Post were owned by (the owners of) Democracy Now, I don't think such a cartoon would have appeared. Since it did, I don't believe that it was an accident, an oversight, unconscious, a slip, whatever you want to call it.

[jozinha]

I am embarrassed by the uncool outrage over Cartoongate. To me it was not the racism battle to pick.

There are only two issues to be kept in mind.

1.) The NY Post is a sleazy rag and the chimp cartoon's awfulness was typical. They also chose to run it , knowing that of its several connotations one of them was racially sensitive. They wanted to stir things up, and with sleazy glee they hid behind other aspects of the story. (Notice no one has lost their job!) And the public fell right into their lap.

2.) Freedom of speech. The sleazy Post has the right to publish anything it wants to that does not incite or promote violence. If you do not know the difference between imagined and actual promotion, study free speech law. There are plenty of similar cases. Free speech is a right, but it costs. Bruised feelings and outrage are some of the costs, but that's cheap compared to not having that freedom. The Post's right to be sleazy should be left alone.

Yes, there is crude racism out there. But that sensitive image should have been spoken against with dignity and then ignored. Maybe we'll get there someday. But this last week I felt like I was in the middle of a Fun House, with the screams and the laughter coming from the same direction. NOT the battle to pick. And any leader who persists in picking it is a lousy leader.

[jade7243]

Maybe Cenk should start with the latest affront to African Americans: the Florida mayor who sends out email with an eCard depicting the front lawn of the White House as planted with watermelons, and the caption "no Easter Egg Hunt This Year."

Is it racist to depict the White House, now occupied by the first black President, as a watermelon patch?

This cartoon is clearly directed at the President and his family and African Americans.

And what about the central California GOP chair who sent out "Barack Bucks" fake welfare food stamps with an image of the then nominee and fried chicken and watermelon to all his GOP friends.

Is it not curious that the perpetrators of all three of the "jokes" (the NY Post cartoonist, the Florida mayor, the California GOP chair) ALL claim to be unaware of these extremely prevalent racist stereotypes of African Americans.

So, Cenk... racist or not? Care to defend it?

[jozinha]

The watermelon image was DIRECTLY referring to the current resident of the White House. And yes, it was disgustingly racist. BTW, I heard it was a CA mayor who sent it out.

The chimp cartoon was not referring DIRECTLY to the President of the United States, therefore it was not referring DIRECTLY to Barack Obama. That's the difference, and it's an important difference.

Should every single person in the United States, now for ever after this, be skittish and stressed out every time an image of a monkey appears or a monkey is mentioned? This is way, way counter-productive. The sensitivity to the image is real, but how best to deal with the sensitivity? Are there insensitive brutes out there? Yes, and there always will be! But how far can outrage go?

[PlayTOE]

Was it racist? Sure, that was it's most minor flaw, but also its most obvious one.

Plenty of cartoons compared Bush to a Chimp. What is wrong with using the same thing now? Plenty.

1 ) There is a history of pretending that African ethnic groups are 'less developed' or closer to chimps. This is quite untrue, but the stereotype is still used far too often.

2 ) The rest of the imagery fails to fit. Obama was not running wild and lashing out at anyone.

3 ) The cartoon blatantly suggests the murder of the President of the United States. Assassination is no joke. Way too many crazies take this stuff seriously and try acting it out.

[JimR]

Nope, wrong. This was not a cartoon about Obama, it was a cartoon about the stimulus bill written and passed by Congress. The chimp was Travis, the chimp police shot and killed in Connecticut. Here, I'll use parentheses to explain:

"They'll (Congress) have to get someone else to write the next stimulus bill (since we just killed the crazed chimp they hired to write the first one)."

[Nommo]

Jim, even if you were right in a small way, the point is this. The cartoon advocates violence then, against Congress. Do you endorse that position? Now let us get more specific. Are you suggesting that Travis is Congress? If so, then the rest of your argument makes no sense. After having shot the ape Travis, why would anyone associate that with the stimulus package? Travis was known for living a life not appropriately ape like, but I doubt that anyone would have consulted him on the economic tenor of the times.

The average cop would be concerned about his pension but I doubt seriously if he/she contemplates shooting the Congress or anyone in it. Why when they can easily shoot a Black person and outside of the minor inconvenience of possibly going to trial, they know that it is an act that will not be punished.

So I ask you again. Are you supportive of a suggestion of violence against a Congressperson?

[NoelGreco]

Thank you.

[rcrussell]

I am a proud, educated, African American woman. I work in an office of 35 people, all white. One day I found a picture of a monkey in curlers on my desk. In my late 50’s, I found it to be the most horrific and hurtful thing I had experienced. Immediately after discovering the photo I got a severe pain in my head and went temporally blind with other physical symptoms, I was taken to emergency thinking I was having a stroke. I was diagnosed with a severe panic attack. I could not have imagined that someone in my office could be so cruel!!!!!!……The cartoon was racist and demeaning. Please my fellow American’s think before you do hurtful things to others because they are slightly different. I really does hurt.

[billyboil]

you americans are so hung up........­.......non­e of us is 'white" or "black".
We all are varying shades of all different colours.
forget about all this crap, and treat everyone with kindness, care and respect.

[BertrandRussell]

With this I wholeheartedly agree and by this do I strive to live my life.

[Tulka2]

Is that you, Stephen Colbert?

[jade7243]

cowardly excuse...

none of us is white or black is the line of thinking by whites too afraid to talk about race....

goes hand in hand with "I don't see color"

Yeah right.... this is what AG Eric Holder is talking about.

[BertrandRussell]

There is no cowardice in proclaiming that which ought to be. If we cannot even discuss what we should be hoping to achieve what then are our chances of growing together as a people?

[BertrandRussell]

I understand there has been institutional racism. I will accept without debate that it continues to this day. I fervently hold that it ought not be so, that it must be eliminated, and so too ought personal beliefs evolve to a more enlightened and realistic view.

What I do not accept is any preeminence of the racism issue. Racism is but one species of discrimination. We do ourselves and our children a disservice if we focus on any particular form of discrimination. To do so necessarily divides us when the goal we are seeking is precisely the opposite of division. Discrimination is best confronted as a singular foe by recognizing that all us, regardless of our color or our creed, suffer when discrimination wrongs any of us, that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

[SeanGardner]

"We do ourselves and our children a disservice if we focus on any particular form of discrimination."

What is the disservice in discussing and seeking to alleviate the "particular form of discrimination" against say, the disabled? So by merely "focusing" on ageism, sexism, racism, homophobia, ethnic bigotry, religious intolerance, and geographical bias, we are doing "ourselves and our children a disservice"? By merely "focusing" on it? You're kidding right?

Look, I don't know about you, but, I am a professional, educated, visionary African-American male who has never been in trouble with the law, and who treets everyone I meet with respect. But guess what? Literally every week (if I not everyday) of my life, I am confronted with some form of racism: the cabs that drive by despite me wearing suits; or the stores I've gone to and received "extra customer service" replete with white employee intonations like "it's very expensive". So even though this happens more times than I care to remember, by thinking about it and "focusing" on it, I am doing myself a disservice? I'm sorry by that thinking is looney.

Let's not be ridiculous. Discrimination of every kind will always be with us: every day; every hour; every minute. Racism included.

[BertrandRussell]

HuffPost's Pick

Thank you for your comments SeanGardner.

No, I am not kidding. Not at all. As I wrote, when we focus on any particular form of discrimination, as opposed to confronting discrimination against anyone and everyone, we divide ourselves as a people. Such divisions introduce "my problem" and "your problem" into a discussion which is essentially everyone's problem.

Discrimination that affects one person directly is but one tentacle of a much larger beast. We can stand alone, forever battling the tentacles that attack us personally, or we can stand together and aim our collective thrusts against the heart of the beast.

When you are discriminated against I too am lessened. When I am discriminated against you too are lessened. Is the burden that one of us bears more important than the burden of the other? I say it is not. How we frame our discussions determines the possible outcomes that we can foresee. If we limit ourselves to the "us and the "them" then we are indeed doing a disservice to our childern for we are cutting off the possibility of what are, perhaps, our most hopeful aspirations.

(For whatever it is worth, I am a professional, educated male of Nordic descent who has never been in trouble with the law, and who treets everyone I meet with respect. The "visionary" adjective I will not claim for myself, I think such characteristics are best left to others to discern as they deem suitable.)

[BertrandRussell]

Okay, let's talk about race.

53 yr old educated white guy here.

I suspect that a large percentage of what is called "racism" has nothing to do with race at all but is, instead, about culture. What we react to is more about differences in culture than in skin color.

This is hardly a forum wherein any meaningful dialog can well be pursued. To argue the merits and failings of my supposition is not possible in this format. Nonetheless, we may do what we can here and so comments and questions are welcomed.

[Nommo]

Educated fellow, racism is the culture. Even if your notion of culture were only the arts, the history that begins with "Birth of A Nation" defines the segregation that would define Hollywood to this day.
The white wash of this nation's history is racist. Who is responsible for that? Who writes and publishes the texts that high schools across America don't even have?

No one is here under the guise of "meaningful dialogue". A foregone conclusion, but whenever do these meaningful dialogues occur? When Black people speak, we are characterized as ''agitators", "race hustlers"; Dr. King was routinely called a communist and that was one of the nicer names. The meaningful dialogue is cut off before it begins as you cannot have a dialogue with someone you insult from the beginning. It is thus impossible that such a dialogue will ever occur in a racist culture certainly not by those defined by the artificial construction that race is.

I only say this to bring comfort. What you claim to look for is not there. We are separate and apart culturally. IMO, there ain't no way around or out of it.

In other words, don't sweat it.

[BertrandRussell]

Hello Nommo and thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.

When you state that "we are separate and apart culturally" you are expressing my point, i.e. that the difference that people react to is not so much the color of a person's skin but the differences in the cultures in which we were raised. Skin color, manner of dress, style of speech, etc. are markers of cultural differences and it is these differences, rather than the markers themselves, that breed uncertainty and hence distrust.

We distrust the differences in culture precisely because we are unsure what to expect from someone who lives by standards other than those with which we are familiar. The discomfort generated by this uncertainty can lead to xenophobia.

I am not claiming that racism does not exist. I am claiming that some what we call racism is actually misidentified xenophobia and that that misidentification prevents us from seeing potential remedies for those ills of society that have been misidentified.

You claim that no one is here under the guise of meaningful dialog yet here I am, seeking to participate in just that (even though the format of a blog's comments make such a dialog more difficult than it might be if held on a message board, for instance).

[Tanyars5]

Nommo- your posts are on point...I agree

[vernbvb]

If we talk about race, let's make it meaningful. That insulting cartoon should just be ignored as a part of a larger serious conversation. To include it in the conversation is sinking just as low as including in the conversation why use of the "n" word is unacceptable and racist

Our starting point in my opinion should be a discussion about tolerance of diversity in general. There is no need to have a lengthy discussion about negative aspects of racism. Everyone knows what racism is so let us begin discussing how we can make our society better by acknowledging and celebrating diversity.

[rcrussell]

Very well said, vernbvb

[Tanyars5]

Cenk - I applaud you for trying to move the race issue to a different level. I don't agree with you but thanks for the effort. Many would not even try.

[dstanley]

I don't care whether the cartoonist meant to be racist or not. I don't believe in a free-for-all, reality TV society, where you can just blurt out whatever pops into your head. I think you have a responsibility to think about what you're saying. The cartoon can be construed as racist, so it's a bad cartoon, whether or not the cartoonist was actually being racist. The idea that rights are not absolute, and have corresponding responsibilities is conservative, but unfortunately there aren't any real conservatives left. I don't think Bush should have been called a chimp either. It's not racist, but so what? It's just more of this kindergarten society that we live in nowdays. If you think calling people names is fun, then everyone's going to call each other names, and some of the names called are pretty ugly.

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

Cenk - I couldn't disagree with you more.

No more soft shoe, sugar coating. This is exactly what A.G. Holder meant by "A nation of cowards", there are cowards who will shy away from the conversation because they hear the word "racist" and there are cowards who will shy away from saying the word "racist". Let's call it what it is and let the chips fall where they may.

Contentious Caucasians should be brave enough to take this conversation back to their people and get those who don't want to hear the word "racist" to open up about it. The same way I've told friends of mine who are in the Nation Of Islam or friends who are Black Panthers that their racist rants make them no better than klansmen.

Truth is truth - and I believe that speaking the truth brings truth to power. People should have the cajonies to speak and hear the truth plainly and unencumbered by the coloring of soft shoeing.

[BOin08]

Is still cool to watch Olbermann? I see rats jumping off the ship over to Rachel and I'm starting to get the stink eye on campus when I admit it I watch Olbermann over Jon Stewart's Daily Show. Is it time to move on?

[MsIrisMG]

I suppose, and nobody I've read has suggested this, that the simple solution is to ask the cartoonist to explain the cartoon. Why does a bullet-riddled chimpanzee suggest to the cop that shot him that they'll have to find someone else to write the stimulus bill? Did the chimp write the stimulus bill? Who, then is the chimp, that is to say, whom does the chimpanzee represent, and why? Once this has been established, perhaps then all of us can suggest ways that this may have been communicated better.

Otherwise, I fully support voting with ones' wallets and boycotting the Post. New Yorkers especially can engage in this. Newspapers are in trouble all over the country (I work for one, I know), and they can ill afford to be this insensitive without putting forth a good reason.

[Tanyars5]

Do you really think that man is going to get on national tv and say "yes I was depicting Pres Obama????" .....yeah right........
I really don't care what is in that mans head....it is quite obvious........his cartoon was very self explanator­y.........­.

[vernbvb]

You are right. It doesn't matter what anyone says as the cartoon is self explanatory. To deny the implications is to insult the intelligence of the intended audience.

[MsIrisMG]

No, I'm not saying he will. But I'm saying it would be a simple solution, or at least insight, into what he was trying to portray that has obviously projected the wrong message.

It reminds me of a couple of years ago when a newspaper overseas published a drawing of Mohammed which got a lot of people asking for the cartoonists' head on a platter. The message was lost and people saw it as an insult while some people shrugged and asked, why are people so up in arms about this?

I see in this cartoon an attack on the President, but yet, and I forget where I read it, something about trying to understand first before giving way to anger. I want to understand what this cartoonist sees, and what others see, and how this may have been communicated better.

[BOin08]

Yes, All newspapers need to do a better job of sensoring their content. Freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to offend anyone. Ooops. Yes it does. Never mind.

[JimR]

"Did the chimp write the stimulus bill?"

In the cartoon, yes. The cartoonist is saying the bill is such a jumbled mess, that crazy chimp in Connecticut must have written it.

Now let me ask you: If the chimp is Obama, who are the cops supposed to be?

[sammyh]

In the case of the NY Post cartoon I feel 100% confident it crossed the line of decency and was clearly racist. The imagery of a chimp as a human (i.e. being able to write the stimulus bill), the "beware of dogs" sign, police officers shooting the chimp -- all herald a time when Blacks were subjected to dogs being unleashed on them, cartoons and racial slurs that tried to dehumanize them to the level of animals, the horrible history of police brutality and assassination. Because of this undeniable history the cartoon was insensitive and racist. Many argue that no one cried racism when "W" was called a chimp; then again there isn't a long history of privileged white men being shot for the color of their skin. Frankly no one would have called this cartoon racist, if the chimp in the cartoon had "Congress" written on its chest.

Those who do not see racism in the cartoon may not be racist just uninformed. That is the bigger issue that goes back to your point of view. How can we effectively have that dialog? A first step might be to put yourself in the other group's position. Ask yourself can you see why they might think this way? However on the flip side we are going to also have to allow for those who do not see this cartoon as racist not to be labeled racist themselves.

Good luck on your MSNBC quest.

[valkyrie607]

It's a worthy idea, Cenk.

I think one of the big obstacles to having this conversation is the idea that many white people have that being called a racist is akin to being called a child molester. It's so beyond the pale. If you call a white person a racist, and they're thinking that way, then it's the end: you have to stop everything and assuage that person's ego until they feel better, that you haven't really called them a racist; they're not really the type to boil babies in oil.

We have to get the word out that being racist happens all the time, to all of us, and it's not the end of the world! It's a natural result of growing up in a culture and a system that has, as you say, institutional racism built into many of its structures. We don't have to be ASHAMED; we need to be aware and vigilant as well as non-judgmental.

Cenk, every time one of these discussions comes up I always post this link to the song "Everyone's A Little Bit Racist," from the Broadway puppet musical Avenue Q. I think it gets my point across perfectly and I would love to hear your reaction to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbwNSNLPIfw