Bill Maxwell, a columnist for the
St. Petersburg Times, proved his bravery when he sharply criticized the Israeli government. He shows even more courage today, as he establishes himself as one of the few black voices willing to puncture
the Obama myth.
You can't disagree with him. You can't question the legitimacy of his many platitudes and promises. And you had better watch it when you offer a litany of his flip-flops or point out his crass opportunism.
I'm not approving of Jackson's choice of words, mind you. But don't kid yourself. Thousands of other blacks dislike or even despise Obama, but they dare not let on.
Maxwell then turns to the
New Yorker brouhaha:
If Obama's swooning, humorless supporters continue to force critics to whisper, to shut up or to explain their artistic renderings, our precious gift and right of free expression will diminish if Obama is elected in November.
I wouldn't be surprised if the 'bots send Maxwell a death threat or two. As I said: He's brave.
10 comments:
Daaaaaaamn. Hope he has some semblance of ability to protect himself.
"If Obama's swooning, humorless supporters continue to force critics to whisper, to shut up or to explain their artistic renderings, our precious gift and right of free expression will diminish if Obama is elected in November."
Over the top BS. People criticized the NY cover as they had every right to do. Almost every one I heard prefaced their remarks with "of course they have the right to publish it." That cover was extreme and so what if people were offended. Obama himself said he'd seen and heard worse. It was a healthy debate. Maxwell's remarks are ludicrous in light of what actually was said and debated about that cover. Obama is constantly criticized. What are you talking about?
Now I suppose we will be treated to a selection of outrageous comments that Joe will search out on blogs and present as the norm.
Scott, that cover WASN'T extreme. It was not even slightly offensive. Extreme? No: It poked FUN at extremes.
My only issue with that image is that it attacked Obama's right wing critics and not Obama himself.
If there are dolts out there who insist on reading "A Modest Proposal" as a cookbook -- so what? Why should the New Yorker, of all publications, cater to dolts?
I mean, jeez, what's next? Are we going to pretend that all satire constitutes endorsement of the thing being satirized? How far do you want to take that? Does this mean that "Network" "endorses" the idea of transforming network news into shameless rabble-rousing?
There are still ninnies in the world who would ban "Huckleberry Finn" because they think that Twain is endorsing the racism he actually sets out to condemn. Remember this passage?
""Good gracious! anybody hurt?" she asks.
""No'm," comes the answer. "Killed a nigger."
""Well, it's lucky, because sometimes people do get hurt."
Now, anyone with any brains can see the author's intent here. I mean, Twain's not exactly being subtle, right?
But believe it or not, there are people in this world who are SO FUCKING CLUELESS that they read this passage and think that Twain approves of the attitudes he is trying to ridicule.
Ninnies believe in the "monkey see, monkey do" theory of art. They think that if Aunt Sally in Twain's work expresses a horrifyingly intolerant and ignorant view, then Twain must be telling his audience: "Aunt Sally is a moral exemplar. You should act the same way, boys and girls."
I'll give another example.
In film class (long long ago), one of my fellow students came up with a simple but brilliant idea: He took a fifteen minute chunk of "Triumph of the Will" and synched it up to an instructional record for people learning how to do shorthand. The professor, who happened to be Jewish, thought this was the funniest thing he had ever seen. (The prof, incidentally, was Irving Block, who wrote "Forbidden Planet.") But sure enough, there was one ninny in the class who actually thought that this revised version of TOTW constituted some sort of pro-Hitler statement.
Must we take these morons into consideration? Must we allow them to limit what can be seen and read by people who possess normal-and-above intelligence?
Of course not.
People who are that fucking dumb simply DO NOT COUNT.
Anyone idiotic enough to misinterpret the intent behind that thuddingly obvious New Yorker cover simply need not be taken into consideration.
As far as Maxwell is concerned -- I think you are way off-base. The Obots still try to pretend that anyone who treats Obama as just another politician must be a racist. They keep using that charge in order to game the debate. It happens all the time.
Black opinion is not monolithic. I think Maxwell is right: A lot of African Americans understand that Obama is a talk-talk-talker who keeps changing his stories and who has accomplished exactly nothing for the black community. I mean, hell, even violinist Rachel Barton Pine has done more than Obama has for the black people of Chicago.
But let's face it -- Obama has the best shot of any black man in history to achieve the oval office. And frankly, the Dems should have nominated a black candidate ages ago. (I think they had a good candidate in 1988.) So there's a perceived need to squelch criticism and rally around someone who really does not deserve it.
Obama's followers are Philistines.
I agree with Scott's take.
As Bob Somerby's Dailyhowler reminds us, much of the rhetorical war against Al Gore was done in the guise of 'jokes' that were not effectively rebutted. Ridicule in the form of falsely premised jokes was arguably responsible for his political demise, with about as dire of consequences for the nation as could be imagined.
Faced with a pattern of jokes that install a false meme in the public, one could take a statesman-like position of silent grin-and-bear-it, HOPING the American public can see through such things. But can they (meaning the public at large) really discern the truth if it is at odds with a consistent propaganda effort to portray non-truth as the fact, even if it is done in humor?
Or is it better to do some push-back? Or are we to censor such push-back, or condemn it as humor-challenged?
I'd say the push-back carries the same free speech implications as the humor. And that it sometimes serves a vital purpose.
We've probably all experienced hearing an offensive joke that crosses the line beyond the pale, as we see it. There is nothing wrong with expressing that position to the one telling the joke, and I have, especially with racist 'humor.' As it is said, gustibus non disputandum, and likewise, when people find a joke unfunny, distasteful, or offensive, who has the authority to tell them they are wrong and should just shut up about it?
...sofla
sof, Somerby is being an idiot, and here's why: The Gore jibes were directed AT Al Gore. The New Yorker cover was directed at Obama's ENEMIES.
If you can't see that key difference, you're an idiot.
"But people might misunderstand...!"
Only mentally retarded people -- and I use the term literally -- could possibly misunderstand. Why should the (possible) reactions of retards have any impact on the discourse of people who possess normal-and-above intelligence?
At one time, anti-Irish prejudice in Britain was very real, and deadly in its impact. Do you honestly believe that "A Modest Proposal" should have been banned because idiots at that time might have taken it at face value?
I cannot fucking believe we are even having this conversation. My god, we are talking about a cartoon which showed Obama with a Bin Laden poster on his wall and the American flag burning in the fireplace. The intent could not have been more obvious. And yet morons -- MORONS -- actually seem to think that the artist's intent was to disparage Obama as a Bin-Laden worshiping flag-burner!
In 1984, there was a Doonesbury cartoon which posited a riposte to Reagan's "Morning in America" campaign. The first five panels replicated the Reagan ad. The last panel showed what "Morning in America" would look like in Walter Mondale's America. It showed a 12 year girl walking out of the front door, saying: "Bye, Mom! I'm off to get my free abortion!"
In 1984, nobody was stupid enough to take this as a slam against Mondale. Everyone understood that Trudeau was making fun of the conservative media's over-the-top demonization of Democrats.
Are we really dumber now than we were in 1984?
Are YOU dumber?
Joseph,
The cover was criticized by those who support Obama. Big deal. So what?
"Must we take these morons into consideration? Must we allow them to limit what can be seen and read by people who possess normal-and-above intelligence?"
Who is limiting anything? You are the one saying that mere criticism of the cover is wrong.
It was smart to object. It lead to a huge discussion about what it meant. And Joe... some of those dolts and morons are right here thinking Obama faked his birth certificate and had sex with some ugly male drug addict.
"Black opinion is not monolithic."
Well yes. true. And therefor there are many who criticize Obama.
Do you think that once a black commentator criticizes Obama other blacks ( or anyone else) have no right to then disagree with that commentator? Do you now object to the back n forth?
Do you have to use the term "retard" to describe those with developmental delay? I find that offensive.
I rewrote the new post, Jen, but I can't rewrite comments.
Come to think of it, it's difficult to draw much of a distinction between the phrases "delay" and "retard."
Post a Comment