Hey friends,
I want to preface this by saying I'm not trying to be bitchy, nor I'm not trying to make anyone out to be a villain.
With that in mind, there's a cartoon over at Christianity Today's Leadership magazine's Out of Ur blog, which my friend Kate and I think is racist. We know that's not likely to be the intention of the artist, magazine, or the many people that have commented on the cartoon (it's one of those fun create-your-own-punchline projects), but still, we find it offensive.
We have spoken with the editors of CT's Leadership magazine, and they've been thinking about it. But thus far, they have not apologized in any way, nor have the posted our comments on the blog (which we wrote before I communicated with them through email). People continue to happily comment away with their punchlines. And apparently (according to the editor we spoke with-- who happens to be a minority) we are the only two people in the world that have brought this to their attention, after the cartoon apparently went to about 50,000 readers last month.
So I wanted to see what you thought: Is this racist? We think it plays off "native savage" stereotypes of groups like American Indians, Pacific Islanders, and other people of color. Furthermore, the "natives" in this cartoon aren't even portrayed as human! (Are they arrowheads? Surfboards? Any ideas??)
Let me know your impressions, and write an email to Leadership editors if you are also concerned. (Note that our comments won't show up on the blog if they're about the cartoon being potentially racist, regardless of how calmly and intelligently you attempt to express yourself.) If you choose to email them please be gracious, but also firmly let them know this is not acceptable.
Love to the blogosphere!
About Me
- Ashleigh
- A recent graduate of UNC-CH, Ashleigh holds an A.B. in Political Science with an Afro-American Studies minor. During college she served as Multi-Ethnicity Team Leader on her InterVarsity chapter's Coordinating Team, and InterVarsity still holds a warm-fuzzy place in her heart. She's beginning work on an MDiv in the fall, and in her spare time, she loves to read non-fiction, orchestrate social gatherings, listen to energetic and/or soulful music, watch 24, eat Thai food, and of course, write.
Blog Archive
Buddies, Heroes, and Otherwise Cool Thinkers/Strangers
- Abby's "Selections"
- Abner Ramos's "Barrio Prophets"
- Alex's "Piebald Life"
- Al Hsu's "The Suburban Christian"
- Betsey's "Considering Lillies
- The CBE Scroll
- CT's Leadership's "Out of Ur"
- Daniel Kirk's "Sibboleth"
- Elana's "It Will All Be Worth It"
- Emily's "Merry's Cloister"
- Emily's "An Analysis"
- Laura's "a lovely work in progress..."
- Marshall Benbow's "Joy in the Margins"
- Scot McKnight's "Jesus Creed"
- Shawn's "Motown Sounds Off"
- Next Gener.Asian Church
15 comments:
Ashleigh,
The cartoon is still there, but your links are broken.
I have a caption for it: "Even their virtues were being burned away."
It's nearly the last line in Flannery O'Connor's, "Revelation," a story replete with racial and social prejudice, in which the main character (a fine, upstanding white woman, Mrs. Turpin) has her world turned on its head. Here is the context of the caption, a paragraph told from Mrs. Turpin's viewpoint:
At last she lifted her head .. A Visionary light settled in her eyes. She saw the streak [in the sky] as a vast swinging bridge extending upward from the earth through a field of living fire. Upon it a vast horde of souls were rumbling toward heaven. There were whole companies of white-trash, clean for the first time in their lives, and bands of black [negroes] in white robes, and battalions of freaks and lunatics shouting and clapping and leaping like frogs. And bringing up the end of the procession was a tribe of people whom she recognized at once as those who, like herself and Claud, had always had a little of everything and the God-given wit to use it right. She leaned forward to observe them closer. They were marching behind the others with great dignity, accountable as they had always been for good order and common sense and respectable behavior. They alone were on key. Yet she could see by their shocked and altered faces that even their virtues were being burned away.
I'm torn on this one, Ash. The reason I am torn is because there is no comment given on the intent of the cartoon or magazine. Is it not better that the characters are no human looking but look more like surfboards or windows? There is no way to confuse them with humans. I don't like the stereotype that tribal types cook people and that missions to tribes ends up like this. But I am not convinces that this is racist.
Daniel,
Thanks for mentioning the dead links. For some reason I copied ".htm" instead of ".html." Oops!
My roommate Kate is an English major, so she's always trying to get me to read fiction. The only lit class I took in college was a Spanish/Spanish American survey, so I have never read O'Connor... BUT, I enjoyed your comment, and it inspired me to let Kate read me one of Flannery's "A Good Man Is Hard to Find." We thoroughly enjoyed it. :o)
Marshall,
I'd be curious to hear what you think the cartoon is about, since you don't think it's racist.
It seems to me that their intentions are relevant as far as how we address such situations, but not necessarily relevant its potential racism. There's so much that goes on in our subconscious, that I don't think we can classify something as racist only if it was malintentioned. What do you think?
I cannot see any racism whatsoever. They are right for ignoring you.
It'd be nice if you could share what you think the cartoon is about, since we obviously have a difference of opinion. How would you describe what's going on in the scene illustrated/who are the characters?
I'm curious what part of the cartoon do you think was racist? And, to whom should CT apologize? What specific group did they offend as you imply? You? I doubt you are an aborigine out of the jungle since according to your profile you are a 21 yr. old, poli-sci student from North Carolina?
Hi Ashleigh, I got your blog site from cbe's blog.
Yes, I agree with you that this cartoon is not in line with the ethnic reconciliation that Christians should be working towards. It definitely opens itself up to racist comments, shown by the captions that people are writing. Everyone writing captions is interpreting them to be tribal people who eat missionaries, which I what I see when I first look at it. It's good to let this anger you as this is a step backwards in the reconciliation that you are working toward. It's just to reminiscent of dehumanizing cartoons that media has used in the past to create fear in people of a particular people group.
Irene,
I think you'd right-on to look at how others are interpreting it. Regardless of how the cartoonist intended it, the kinds of captions people are coming up with make it pretty clear that they see this as being about white missionaries eaten by tribal natives. And how others are going to interpret things is pretty important–but not considering that, the artist of such a cartoon might be encouraging racism even if not participating in it. (Though I have a hunch there's some racism–conscious or unconscious–on the artist's part, as well.)
There is nothing in this cartoon that deserves the charge of racism. I guess if you try hard enough to see racism, you can probably see it in any cartoon. This is case in point - you've imagined it.
Mike,
I leave you with the same question I've left everyone else who has commented similarly:
What do you think the cartoon is about? What is the story there? And why, if it is not racist, do a significant number of people commenting at Out of Ur decide the cartoon is about savage natives roasting white missionaries for dinner?
Do you think that if one admitted that the cartoon is about missionaries being boiled by tribal people that that would be an admission to inherent racism? What group does it disparage (which ethnic group - all of them, all non-Caucasian groups, some of them, ones which actively practice cannibalism today(0)or the ones that used to?). It is utterly generic, and it is just a funny cartoon about missionaries ending up as soup (circa 1950, when those sorts of things happened infrequently).
Mike, yes, I do think that the cartoon is racist because of its portrayal of tribal peoples in a ery negative, stereotypical light.
I'm not denying that some missionaries died at the hands of the peoples they were trying to reach. But that's a pretty touchy subject isn't it? What exactly are we laughing at and at whose expense?
Does it honor the families of those who died to make their nightmare into a joke?
Does it honor the individuals who killed them to make a joke out of their sin?
Does it honor either party to assume the missionaries were completely pure in motive and deed while the "natives" that killed them were savages? (There's a good deal of evidence that many missionaries throughout the ages have been cultural imperialists to some extent or another-- something which is NOT Good News in any sense of the word. Who's to say these people weren't entirely justified in being really pissed off at the missionaries, even if they took things "too far"?)
Does it honor anyone at all, really?
Does it honor God?
As far as who's the victim of this racism, the stereotypical "native" doesn't have a defined ethnic/cultural identity. But some broad categories of people often portrayed in this light (go look at cartoons from 1800-1950, esp-- from political cartoons to Disney the portrayals are remarkably the same) include people of African, American Indian, and Pacific Islander descent. While not as "tribal," Arabs are also very frequently portrayed in extremely negative terms.
I disagree - the cartoon is not at all racist. Perhaps an over occupation with race can lead one to see racism in harmless, non-malicious places where no group is disparaged, really. By the way, isn't an over occupation with race (such as your struggles with your own "whiteness", and always being concerned, and noting, the race of others - "white missionaries", and the mentioning that the guy at CT was "a minority", etc.) a form of racism.
And when you ask if it honors God, do you mean that if racism is intended? If racism is intended anywhere then it is dishonoring to God. However, since there is no racism in this cartoon, it does not dishonor God in that regard. In other regards, it seems pretty harmless. I doubt that God was as offended as you were.
As far as whether it honors the missionaries who have been killed by tribal peoples - I doubt they were going for that; actively honoring missionaries. However, it does not dishonor them. I know several of the family members of missionaries who were killed by Colombian rebels in the late 90's and I know the kids and a grandchild of a missionary famously killed by the Ayore people in the 40's - and I seriously doubt that any of them would take issue with this cartoon.
You have no case here.
Mike,
You're certainly entitled to your own opinion. Interesting to hear your perspective.
Post a Comment