What the Obama Sock Monkey Scandal Tells Us About U.S. Race Relations

TheSockObama Co. 's recent release and revocation of their Barack Obama sock monkey is a window into contemporary American race relations. After receiving a barrage of negative emails, phone calls, and publicity claiming that the toy was racist, they canceled production, issued refunds, and offered what appeared to be a more-or-less heartfelt apology (see excerpts here ). That apology was later taken down. And this letter by co-owner Elizabeth Lawson, aggressively revoking the apology, appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune. Some highlights from their anti-apology:

We at TheSockObama Co. have some questions to pose. What's really going on in America? In the good ol' fashion spirit of entrepreneurialism; free enterprise has been censored, and TheSockObama politically plush toy has been discriminated against in the marketplace of the United States of America...

It's okay for there to be hundreds of thousands of Google sites containing references to our current president's resemblance to a chimpanzee. However, it's not okay to make that same association regarding our possible next president. Isn't this the very definition of hypocrisy?

TheSockObama is no longer scheduled to go into mass production... Have the bullies won here?

...the blogging dens of resistance quickly began their fury of emails. An electronic battery of fiery darts flowed swiftly but silently through the veins of technology. Feverish fingers frantically clicking coast to coast, crashing and burning our tragically naive - yet sparkling website. A steady stream of repetitive verbal eloquence graced our Customer service inbox with tasty tidbits like, eff-ewe and every other colorul (soc.) expletive you could possibly imagine. We thought we had heard it all. Hey thanks. This is America, right?

...With the number of Customers we've had to disappoint in our first week of business; are we saying it's okay to take something out of the marketplace that other people want to buy? Are we now censoring one another's liberty as Americans to freely purchase goods and services on our own terms? Is this the kind of America we want?

First, notice the prioritization of "free enterprise" over anti-racism. A commitment to making money at all costs, then, is more important than social justice. In fact, interfering with "entrepreneurialism," even if by objecting to racist products is, according to Lawson, downright un-American. Yet the U.S. has a rich history of protest, much of which was and is aimed at extirpating both concrete and abstract racism. Their assertion that the free market is more American than social justice is debatable.

Second, there is an appropriation of "discrimination" when they say the Obama Sock Monkey is being "discriminated against." This is absurd, of course. But it also reduces "discrimination" to individual prejudice and makes invisible the fact that the toy invokes a real institutional history of prejudice that is both lingering and ongoing. Indeed, the liking of the comparisons of Bush and a chimpanzee with their own product and the naming of objections to their toy as "hypocrisy" erase the hundreds of years, beginning with the colonial encounter, in which black people were compared to apes in order to justify their exploitation.

Third, they refer to "bullies," casting those who fight against racism as meanies. According to Lawson, their entitlement to feel picked on is justified by their naiveté. She explains that they were simply "naive," not racist or malevolent; therefore they should be forgiven (and also, mysteriously, be able to make the doll). But being naive about racism is a privilege only whites can afford. And being naïve about racism is an easy way to reproduce it, as they were poised to do with their product. They also, simultaneously, revoke the right of people to be angry about racism. In fact, they use references to the anger of those opposing their product in order to try to delegitimate them when they refer to the "dens of resistance," "fury of emails," "fiery darts," and "crashing and burning." (They even throw in a sarcastic "eloquence" jab). The assertion that it is unacceptable to get mad about racism is a way of trivializing it and rejecting the genuine concerns of people hurt by it.

Finally, they refer to "liberty." To whose liberty are they referring? Clearly they want to defend their own liberty to make whatever toy they like. But what about the liberty of people to fight against racism? Clearly this liberty didn't register on Lawson's list. Ironically, however, the shutting down of TheSockObama Co. is a beautiful example of the liberty of all Americans to engage in collective action and fight for what they believe in.

Comments

[ShapingYouth]

Excellent piece. For those that can't tell the difference between entrepreneurial spirit & racism, I’ll offer this “Pat the Politician” (pull & poke parody) that some friends designed in bipartisan splendor…

http://www.amazon.com/Pat-Politician-Political-Pull-Parody/dp/0974889105 ---For those that 'don't get it' as to why there's a big diff. btwn. Bush & Obama being portrayed as chimps, I'll also point to an excellent site called AntiRacistParent.com for ‘getting up to speed.’

AntiRacist Parent also offers tips on how to process info when it lands on kids sideways too (how to handle slurs, etc. per the comment above) Carmen serves on our advisory board and we team with some of her writers on Shaping Youth.org, our nonprofit blog where we deal with media and marketing's impact on kids. They have guest bloggers w/a variety of multiracial and ethnic backgrounds so always seem to offer some fresh, unique perspectives, often poignant, personal, and profound..­.

Anyway, solid piece, Lisa, thanks...

[spacealien]

SUPERB POST!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!
EXCELLENTLY WRITTEN!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!
WELL SAID.

[GrandmaJ]

I just checked the site again. The Obama doll no longer has a tail.

[GrandmaJ]

Great post.
This statement shows she is not as naive as she would have us believe:
It's okay for there to be hundreds of thousands of Google sites containing references to our current president's resemblance to a chimpanzee. However, it's not okay to make that same association regarding our possible next president. Isn't this the very definition of hypocrisy?
They are still selling the sock doll. They have added a McCain doll, but it doesn't have a tail.
Check out www.sockpolitians.com

[Schrodingerscat]

(As a response to the responses to my previous post so that it doesn't keep indenting)

First, thanks for the respectful and thoughtful respnses. Here's the thing:

I'm reasonably certain that we can agree that an act of racism is one which one person is treated worse than another on the basis of their ancestry. On that premise, the theoretical situation described below cannot be racist because it is the exact opposite.

I understand (as well as any white person having never been personally subjected to racism) that an Obama monkey caricature can be hurtful. However insisting preferential treatment seems to be wrong as well.

Rebuttal?

[Jax6655]

Because you are a "white person having never been personally subjected to racism" you then refer to the legitimate outrage over (yet another) racist symbol as "insisting [on] preferential treatment"

Are these people your relatives?

Totally. Clueless.

[blaqntelligence]

Totally correct...­...
I read this from Jax and just shook my head.
You answered for both of us.

[Jax6655]

This article should be named "What HuffPost will do for money"

C'mon, hasn't anyone noticed the PAID ADVERTISING for the Obama monkey sock puppet on this very page?? Just scroll down. So I clicked on the page to see if maybe it was another sock puppet.

Nope.

Do they think it's now ok because there's also a "sock McCain" monkey as well?? How many folks do you think will buy the McMonkey? My guess is the prototype will suffice.

[XME]

I see an ad for Yahoo! Shopping which brings up many sock monkeys via a search, but not the one in question. Either the ad you are referring to was removed, or it doesn't have the "Obama Monkey" in it. Either way, given the topic of the article, it probably would have been wise not to have ANY sock monkey ads on the page (or site for that matter).

[OlongapoEd]

The Patrick Buchanan statement noted below is really the sort of thing "Freedom of Speech" zealots routinely say, even those who claim to be non-Conservatives. In fact, I'm surprised that various self-styled "champions of First Amendment liberties" have not already rushed to the defense of Elizabeth Lawson and her company. Such zealots seem to love to defend such egregious misconduct, most likely to prove their "personal virtue".

Lawson's statement, full of the self-pitying rage of the thwarted right-winger, touches on another issue that will surely attract attention (unless other threads draw too much attention away from this one). The statement is, in effect, a claim that "We have the right to run our business as we see fit." The claim is patently false. And yet, the idea behind that claim is quite popular in certain circles. I will be surprised if none of those who genuflect at the altar of The Magic Of The Marketplace do not show up to defend Lawson.

[anon004]

Hey, wasn't it right-wing fundamentalist Christians who called for a boycott of Disney because they provided health insurance for same-sex partners? I know there are other examples, but that was one of the most egregious in my mind. Apparently, when it's their so-called values that are being challenged, free enterprise be damned!

[TheBellyBionic]

Having spent the first 30 years of my life in Utah, I really can't muster up any surprise that the company is based in Utah. The culture there is one of extensive racism which everyone insists is not racist. The explanation given by the owner of the company is exactly what I'd expect to hear.

[Schrodingerscat]

It's not like they couldn't have seen it coming. What an incredibly stupid thing to do. Bbut I'd like to pose a hypothetical question:

Suppose Obama gets elected and (again, hypothetically) he is a colossal failure as president, i.e. economy continues to tank, Iran develops nuclear weapons, more terrorist attacks on US soil, what have you. If he could objectively be considered as bad of a president as Bush (or worse, for this thought experiment), regardless of how unlikely you think that would be, would it still be racist to portray him as a monkey in criticism of his policies?

[TheBellyBionic]

Yes, it would still be racist. The difference between calling Bush a chimp and portraying Obama as a monkey is that Bush isn't part of a group that has experienced decade upon decade of institutionalized racism with comparisons to monkeys as a general theme. Rich, white oilmen have never been enslaved in the US. Rich, white oilmen have never been dehumanized and treated as animals to be bought and sold. Criticism of Obama is fine. Criticism though racist imagery is not.

[kristycu]

yes, because it goes beyond that, it has nothing to do with intelligence. black people for years have been compared to gorillas and monkey based on skin color and "looks" and because of where we originated from. when they did it to bush, they were saying he was stupid, but if they when they compare any black person with a monkey all those racial wound open up and it is really hard to explain if you have never been through it or experienced it yourself. just like if you have never been mugged you can never really know the violation of it all. I'm sure if your scenario plays out there are more than enough "animals" for comparison that they can use. not only that if he is as bad as you say in this hypothetical they can just put Bush's picture up their :)

[blaqntelligence]

Yes it would be racist.
Black people have been compared to monkeys and apes since colonial times. They didn't have to earn that dubious distinction as george bush did.

[Bocababs]

I am working on my "Mr. Potato Head" look alike Potato Kit for John McCain. I was a kid in the 1950's when this came on the market, and I swear, when I see John McCain, I can only think of "Mr. Potato Head".

[SusaninIN]

I can see the resemblance. It should sell well.

[knosiswar]

WARNING, THE FOLLOWING COMMENT CONTAINS SARCASM. CONSERVATIVES BRAINS WILL BE UNABLE TO PROCESS.

Has anybody seen the car-jacked, violently assaulted Elizabeth Lawson sock doll, it's really neat, and a great stocking stuffer. Yea, Free Markets!

[BusGreg]

Well written. But really, what do you expect when their family tree (the owners' of this ridiculous thing) has only one branch?

[itmaybetoolate]

It was the company's choice to stop making the product. If they are going to produce racist products, they had better be able to take the heat.

[tinarm]

Thank you Lisa, the mentality of the people who started this thing is the same one Pat Buchanan and his right wing buddies use all the time. Well, don't white people have the right to be racist. Pat says all whites should have to right to say what ever they want no matter how wrong it is. Please I'm so sick of these kind of statements and actions by rightwing nuts. I'm trying to keep my daughter away from past thinking, but every time I turn around she's having to ask me a question about why so and so said this or that. She doesn't understand it and she doesn't like it. She says they are mean and nasty and should take a good look in the mirror first.