It’s a good thing the LA Times is offering an English-to-Racist/Racist-to-English dictionary now. For those of us without an interpreter, it can become quite a confusing topic. According to the LA Times, this recent picture seen on conservative blogs is obviously racist (at least to those who have the dictionary for interpretation).
To the uninformed, this might appear to be a jab at an “elitist” attitude, but we’d be wrong, wouldn’t we? According to their interpretation, it is now a racial slur to compare someone of color to Marie Antoinette.
What becomes confusing is the fact that a few other first ladies have previously been compared to Marie Antoinette as well. Apparently, those doing the comparing at the time were unaware of the obvious racial undertones associated with this characterization. Ask Nancy Reagan or Hillary Clinton:
”Even her staunchest defenders concede that Nancy Reagan is more Marie Antoinette than Mother Theresa.”
”Hillary Clinton Proves Herself the Marie Antoinette of the Keystone State: Let Them Eat Cake.”
Perhaps more frightening, Paul Ryan does not even escape the comparison on this Wisconsin blog post. That kind of omits any forthcoming charge of sexism, doesn’t it? I guess Marie Antoinette is an equal opportunity slur.
To the average person, it might not immediately make sense that comparing Michelle Obama to Marie Antoinette would be any different than comparing Nancy or Hillary. Fortunately, we have the LA Times to help us crack that secret race code once again.
Not to belabor the obvious, Obama’s people can’t argue facts (they don’t have any, because the one success of his first term–killing Osama–can’t be replicated) and the vision thing is gone, once everyone figured out that the slogan was “I HOPE things CHANGE.” That leaves calling the other side names, and of course the most obvious one is racist. Surrogates do the dirty work, of course, so Obama himself is unsullied, and it’ll be levelled against anyone for saying *anything* critical of the administration, no matter how trivial or non-racial. Things like this picture, which excoriate the First Family for the travel they take at family expense, are pretty much standard operating procedure–Bush got the same ridicule when he was President, only from the other side. Now everyone changes places, and each side will try and tell you that their criticisms were justified, while the other guy’s are partisan attacks. Whatever. The difference, of course, is that criticizing the “Imperial Presidency” of George W. Bush was just politics, criticizing anything the Obama family does is of course racist. That means they trump us every time, right up until the country wises up.
Let me get my microscope out so I can play my very very very small violin.
….hey, folks…..
Has it been forgotten that Obama is half White, half Black…..he’s apparently made a choice to be seen as “Black”.
– as in, let them eat.
Not racist or sexist, but maybe homophobic– Michelle’s arm looks like she could play free safety for the Redskins next year (to be honest, it probably wouldn’t hurt the Redskins defense, either.)
Now I know why the LA Times does this sort of thing– it’s fun to search for ways to be offended!
The Left has played the race card so often (and so inappropriately) that it’s become threadbare; you can see right through it – to the fact that they have no argument.
I’m pretty sure they’re going after the giant arm; no giant arm no racism. To me that’s an arguable dig. How does the giant arm fit into the scenario?
Aside from that, merely depicting her as Marie is no problem.
I think the “giant arm” is justified in a political jab. Most political cartoons emphasize physical characteristics, and she appears to wear clothing to emphasize well toned arms herself. How that can be construed as racist is also beyond me.
I’m not saying it is racist, but asking what purpose the giant arm serves apart from masculizing an African-American woman which is a common racial dig. Political cartoons emphasize physical characteristics but usually towards a consistent overall body type and purpose and besides, this is not a cartoon. The arm doesn’t really add anything to the overall theme; if she was Serena Williams I’d say of course.
I agree with the main point however: for example if one wanted to use a “Planet of the Apes” theme that would be out the window but it should be in play. Were I black I wouldn’t want to have people walking around me on tip-toes with shrunken cultural vocabularies that exclude me from so much that is in play in American culture.
It’s a good thing I don’t have a blog cuz I’d challenge everything I shouldn’t which would of course lead to Mohamed and my eventual death.
“masculizing an African-American woman which is a common racial dig” I was not aware of this being a common thing. Can you cite a few examples? Not disagreeing, just haven’t personally seen this.
It’s out there but maybe I’m more aware than most cuz of research I’ve been doing on black websites which are hypersensitive about “gorillaizing” the Williams sisters in tennis. The Root’s “positive” take on the First Lady’s “guns” ran to “She is neither Jezebel, the soft-witted, oversexed temptress, nor Mammy, the asexual nurturer.” Pretty stupid stuff in my opinion.
The point is that I don’t think there is enough general awareness of the media and those same black sites in complimenting the First Lady’s arms to be effective in a political lampoon and so it can be taken the wrong way.
Any way if her arms matter then why doesn’t her giant hind end? One would seem to cancel the other out but to lampoon her hind end would certainly be considered racist. I admit the temptation to satirize the eternally offended is almost overwhelming. That’s why people use the N-Word and don’t bother with white folks – white folks don’t care and will laugh if you use a racial slur on them. Let people know you’re vulnerable and they’ll come at you.
I certainly perceive the First Lady as arrogant and don’t attach any uppity negro to that sentiment. You have to be arrogant to do and say some of the stuff she does. Who the hell elected her for anything; she’s riding the coattails of a poseur in the first place and second fiddle to second fiddle invites criticism and insult.
My own impression is that Michelle Obama does NOT actually have well-toned arms. While I don’t spend an inordinate time ogling the arms of women who are particularly fit, she does not compare well to them. If I were her, I wouldn’t be showing them off, but, then again, I wouldn’t have married the poseur.
Compare and contrast the images. Are they both racist? Are neither racist? Is one but not the other? Why or why not?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2012/01/racist-image-of-michelle-obama-based-on-versailles-painting.html
and
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20081124,00.html
The Times is going out into left field with the uppity negro thing which I don’t see at all – hard to believe such morons write professionally. It amused me they commented the muscular arm was black as if it might have been otherwise.
I see neither as racist. One (Michelle’s) implies elitism and the other (Obama) suggests he follow in FDR’s footsteps, but personally I see no racism purposely implied in either.
Wait, Marie Antionette was Austria, just like Arnold Schwarzenegger, a name that combines Schwarz (black in German) and an unmentionable racial slur.
Come on, its blindingly obvious.
Now later this year, when some Democrat compares President-elect Romney’s wife Ann to Marie Antoinette, of course that will be a socially acceptable elitist comment, and of course will be seen as quite hilarious, by the right sort of people, you know.
The fact that the LAT sees this as racist and not this:
http://minx.cc/?post=325417
(which, incidentially, was an editorial cartoon which RAN in the LAT six years ago) tells you everything you need to know about the media’s politically motivated use of the “racism” charge. As a commentator on “the Root” once put it, the sole purpose of charging racism is to benefit the Democratic Party, if the charge benefits Democrats, it will be raised, if it does not, it won’t, truth (and civil discourse, not to mention genuine racial progress) be damned.
Wow….another great example.