I just saw a story about this image on “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” (image found here):

It is a “joke” included in the “October newsletter by the Chaffey Community Republican Women, Federated” (I read more about it here; the group is from San Bernardino, CA), in which they claim that if Obama wins, his face will be on food stamps, not dollar bills. From a story in The Press-Enterprise:

Fedele [the group’s president] said she got the illustration in a number of chain e-mails and decided to reprint it for her members in the Trumpeter newsletter because she was offended that Obama would draw attention to his own race. She declined to say who sent her the e-mails with the illustration. She said she doesn’t think in racist terms, pointing out she once supported Republican Alan Keyes, an African-American who previously ran for president. “I didn’t see it the way that it’s being taken. I never connected,” she said. “It was just food to me. It didn’t mean anything else.”

Uh huh. Right. Who could possibly have known that African Americans were historically portrayed in racist carictures eating fried chicken, ribs, and/or watermelon, or that there’s a long-standing political tradition of trying to connect Blacks and welfare in the public mind?

Honestly, it’s been awhile since an image of Obama actually made me gasp, but that one did.

UPDATE: Larry, from the L.A. Times‘ Daily Mirror blog, sent in a link to this post at the blog Please God No, in which the author claims to be the creator of the Obama bucks cartoon and says,

It was a satirical look at some of the Fox News watching right-wingers out there that are afraid of a government that sponsors welfare type programs. It was intended to poke fun at the unrealistic fears and agenda of racism that a fringe element of Republicans strongly embrace.

The author continues,

This “cartoon” (as described in the media), was meant to empower African Americans to stand up for and defend themselves against racial intolerance. This “cartoon” was prescribed to showcase the racial hatred and intolerance towards the “left” and it’s liberal “welfare” economic plan. Guess what? The radical right picked up this fumble and ran with it right into the opponents goal line. The fact that a website like this exists is not evidence of racial hatred or divide, but the fact that an image taken from this website was used in a legitimate publication to promote the Conservative agenda must be proof of either existing racism or utter stupidity.

I thought the author’s response might be interesting for a discussion of political parody and humor and the limits of satire. What makes political humor effective and what makes it, as in this case, actually appeal to the group the humorist claimed to be mocking? If people miss the satire, is that because they’re dumb or because the satire isn’t that good? If someone says they’re being satirical, does that automatically shield them from any accusations of sexism, racism, etc.? I really find the issue of humor to be fascinating–what we find funny, what happens when some groups don’t recognize what another group claims was an attempt to be humorous, and how claims of being satirical or “just joking” can be used to avoid responsibility for the content of statements or images. This seems like a particularly good example of some of those issues.

Dara G. sent in a link to this billboard in West Plains, Missouri, featuring a caricature of Obama in a turban meant to imply he’s an Arab/Muslim (found here):

NEW!  Here’s another (found here):

For other examples of accusations that Obama is Arab/Muslim (and that that is bad), see here, here, here, and here. For a non-racist caricature of Obama (showing it can, indeed, be done), see this post.

Thanks, Dara!

And I just saw on Rachel Maddow’s show that this image showed up briefly on the Sacramento County Republican Party’s website (image found here):

There’s more!

This image is from a recent rally (found here):

And, if you haven’t seen it yet, here is the by-now-classic video of supporters of a McCain rally yelling that Obama is a “terrorist” bound on spreading “terror” (found here):

I presume you can figure out for yourself how these might be used in classes. Negative messages about Arabs/Muslims, attempts to use fear of the connection between Arabs and terrorism, joking about torture, racist imagery, etc. etc….You don’t need me for this one.

To be fair, McCain, in at least one instance, has been attempting to temper this fervor. But, as Gwen mentioned in a previous post, those who stir up hatred often have a difficult time controlling it. I’d love to have some social psychologists weigh in on the phenomenon.

NEW! Man in Ohio hangs Obama from a tree in his front yard and boldly claims racist motivation (found here):

Miguel sent in these photos from nANUFACTURE, a children’s clothing store based in Valencia, Spain. The advertising campaign is “save the babies.” This first one was found at the company website:

This one was found here:

The babies in the top photo are holding signs in Spanish that say “there’s life beyond pink” and “no more teddy bears!” The sign in the lower left photo says “no sky blue, thanks.”

Given that the website includes photos of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt and of a scene from the “Sex and the City” movie that shows toys sold at the store, and the super-hipness of the clothing line (flared-leg kids’ jeans, anyone?), I assume the store sells expensive stuff. Their mission statement includes statements about supporting breastfeeding and natural childbirth, as well as selling children’s clothing. According to one of the owners (I think my translation is accurate enough),

Dads and moms…have their first son or daughter when they’re around age 30. That is, they’re young! But it appears that no other store owner in this sector [children’s clothes] has noticed this small detail.

They go on to talk about saving babies from ugly polka dots, teddy-bear stencils, and pastel pink and blue.

I think this is an interesting mixture of elements. It’s nice to see any store selling alternatives to the pink/blue dichotomy and providing forums for breastfeeding advocacy groups and such. But I also think the clear marketing to a certain type of parent is worthy of discussion. Obviously, kids don’t know whether they’re supposed to think polka dots are awesome or lame. This is about “saving” kids from things these young, hip parents think are lame or uncool. We’ve had a couple of posts recently about politically labeling kids (see here), but here we have an example of non-political labeling: as too hip and cool for the tastes of the masses. These images might be a useful addition to a discussion of how children’s clothing often reflects parents’ tastes and ideas about themselves (as cool, progressive, liberal/conservative, etc.), or about the rise in expensive children’s clothing marketed to the middle and upper-middle class.

Full disclosure: I do think many items of children’s clothing are hideous, but I’m probably in no position to judge, since my mom once made us shirts out of some rags she found in my grandpa’s shop that he planned to use to sop up oil. Yes, we actually wore rags.

Thanks, Miguel!

I just saw one of these signs in my neighbors’ yard (image found here):

The reason it struck me is that a) I’m quite certain it’s the first time I’ve ever seen a pink campaign sign and b) it made me remember the criticisms of the Kerry/Edwards yard signs from the 2004 campaign (see this post). The Democratic candidates’ signs were described as lacking confidence, whereas the Republicans’ logo exuded masculinity and assertiveness, which supposedly reinforced stereotypes of Democrats as weak and uncertain and Republicans as aggressive and strong. It’s a sign of the many unexpected events of this campaign season that just four years later Republicans would feel comfortable putting out a pink yard sign because they’re actively playing up the femininity of one of the candidates. It’s not just that they’re emphasizing that she’s female; I’m pretty sure if Hillary Clinton had won the Democratic nomination, she wouldn’t have pink yard signs. I have a feeling that the Democrats, facing the stereotype that they’re weak and uncertain, wouldn’t want to take the chance of having yard signs in a color associated with femininity, even if they had a female candidate, but that’s just a hunch.

I found these vintage (1967-68) ads for Tiparillo cigars at Found in Mom’s Basement. All answer the question, “Should a gentleman offer a Tiparillo to…” a particular type of woman.

After a tough evening with the Beethoven crowd, she loves to relax and listen to her folk-rock records. Preferably, on your stereo. She’s open-minded. So maybe tonight you offer her a Tiparillo. She might like it–the slim cigar with a white tip. Elegant. And, you dog, you’ve got both kinds on hand, Tiparillo Regular and new Tiparillo M with menthol–her choice of mild smoke or cold smoke. Well? Should you offer? After all, if she likes the offer, she might start to play. No strings attached.

Underneath that pocket of pencils there beats the heart of a digital computer. This girl has already catalogued and cross-indexed the Tiparillo slim, elegant shape. And the neat, white tip. She knows that there are two Tiparillos. Regular, for a mild smoke. Or new Tiparillo M with menthol, for a cold smoke. She knows. She’s programmed. And she’s ready. But how about you? Which Tiparillo are you going to offer? Or are you just going to stand there and stare at her pencils?

She’ll read anything she can get her hands on. From Medieval History to How-to-Build-a-24-Foot-Iceboat. Loves books. Loves new ideas. Okay. No doubt, she’s seen the unusual, slim Tiparillo shape. She’s been intrigued by the neat, white tip. She may even know that there are two Tiparillos. Regular, for a mild smoke. And new Tiparillo M with menthol, for a cold smoke. Your only problem is which to offer. P.S. If she accepts your Tiparillo, remember to fumble with the matches until she decides to light it herself. That way, she’ll have to put down the book.

I found these next two on ebay (all these vintage ads can be purchased on ebay, it turns out):

Is this the old did-it-with-mirrors ploy? Look again. Okay, that’s enough looking. What you’ve got on your hands are carbon copy twins. And what you’ve got in your hands are Tiparillo and Tiparillo M with menthol. Since Tiparillo is the slim, elegant cigar with the neat tip, would it be statistically correct to offer it to this census-taking twosome? Because all they really want is your name, address, phone number and a few other factual facts. But what they get sort of depends on what you offer.

“The doctor is a little late, sir. Will you have a seat?” She’s the best thing to hit dentistry since novocaine. “Hey Dummy,” your mind says to you, “why didn’t you have this toothache sooner?” Maybe if…well, you could offer her a Tiparillo. Or a Tiparillo M with menthol. An elegant, tipped cigar. Slim. And your offer would be cleverly psychological. (If she’s a bit of a kook, she’ll take it. If not, she’ll be flattered that you thought she was a bit of a kook.) And who knows? Your next visit might be a house call.

I will lead it to you, dear reader, to decide if there was supposed to be anything else “cleverly psychological” in any of these ads.

Samantha J. brought me two brochures she saw at a doctor’s office the other day, one for Botox Cosmetic and one for Restylane. Here is the front cover of the Botox pamphlet:

I had seen the (ironic) “Freedom of Expression” tagline before (see here and here). But I hadn’t previously seen the “Men and women of all skin colors and ethnicities are enjoying the freedom!” line.

Here are two images found side-by-side inside the brochure:

Notice the text under the question “Who is being treated with BOTOX Cosmetic?”

Men and women of varying ethnicities have been treated with BOTOX Cosmetic. Because it works only on the underlying muscles, it is not expected to affect skin color.

I had no idea there was any concern that Botox might affect skin color. Anyway, apparently Botox is making an active effort to market to “varying ethnicities,” represented in the brochure as White and Black.

Here are three pages from the Restylane pamphlet, all answering the question, “Why do I use Restylane?”

“To look good…even in fluorescent lighting!”

“To lose these wrinkles…and my inhibitions!” (Which apparently means riding a mechanical bull.)

“To hide my real age…because he thinks I’m younger than I am!”

Honestly, those last two sound like parodies of how these procedures would be marketed. I don’t know which one creeps me out more: the connection between getting Restylane and being freed of inhibitions, or the complete normalization of the idea that a woman should lie to a man about how old she is (because what could make for a happier relationship than lying?) and spend money to keep him from finding out the truth, and that if he found out, he presumably wouldn’t love her anymore…not because she lied, but because she’s too old.

Apparently Restylane is not used by people of varying ethnicities, because everyone in the pamphlet is White.

I also think it’s really creepy that these brochures were available at a doctor’s office.

Thanks, Samantha!

I found this 1971 ad for Kenmore stoves over at Found in Mom’s Basement:

The woman says,

If you ever broke 14 nails cleaning an oven, you’d know why I want this new self-cleaning one. They say the Kenmore self-cleaning oven even gets the corners clean. You just set the dials. It locks itself and everything. And you know what a horrible job it is cleaning under the burners? No, I guess you don’t. Anyway, with this stove you just flip up the top and give it a wipe. The automatic timer on the oven’s great too. It’ll cook dinner even if I’m out shopping or something.

Her husband says,

That stove’s really put together right. And another good thing, you can sure depend on Sears service. Honey, you’re about to own a new stove.

We still frequently see this message–instead of getting men to share housework more equally, women should buy appliances that make their workload easier…and of course would need their husbands to pay for them. And then you should use it to cook for him, because that’s who it’s built for anyway.

Also…14 nails? Like, she broke all 10, grew 4 more in real quick (or put on 4 fake ones), and then broke them too? Or was she somehow using her feet and some of them were toenails? Burk says that part of the ad makes women seem whiny and as though they exaggerate the difficulties of housework.

I must be a disgusting human being, because the only time I ever worry about cleaning my oven is when I move out of a place I’m renting and have to if I want my deposit back. I’ve never noticed it being particularly disgusting, but then I put a tray under everything to catch drips.

Shoshannah F. sent in this video of a group singing what is titled “Eid Mubarak India Song.” Shoshannah says,

“Eid mubarak” is a traditional Muslim greeting reserved for use on the festivals of Eid ul-Adha and Eid ul-Fitr.

Eid al Fitr, by the way, is the festival celebrating the end of Ramadan; it was celebrated last week.

There are several things in the video I think are interesting. First, it might be a good example of the diversity that exists in the Muslim world. As we’ve talked about before on Soc Images (see here and here) , in the U.S. Islam is often associated very strongly with “the veil” or even “the burqa.” This is used as evidence that Islam is automatically and uniquely oppressive to women. Yet in this video we see some women wearing scarves that cover some of their hair and other women whose heads are completely uncovered. It might be a useful video to show (at least a bit of it) if you’re talking about stereotypes of Islam and the idea that all Muslim women have to wear head coverings.

I can also imagine using a short clip from it to illustrate the fact that students’ frequent belief that Muslim = Arab = Middle Easterner is actually inaccurate. I assign a reading in my race class by Nadine Naber titled “Ambiguous Insiders: An Investigation of Arab American Invisibility” (2000, Journal of Ethnic and Racial Studies vol 23, number 1, p. 37-62). She argues that Islam has been racialized in the U.S., such that most Americans assume all Arabs are Muslims and all Muslims are Arabs, and negative stereotypes of Arabs and Arab Americans are extended to Muslims in general. On a global basis, only a minority of Muslims live in the Arab-speaking world (which is, by the way, the definition of “Arab”); the largest Muslim population lives in Indonesia, and though they are predominantly Muslim countries, neither Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, nor Afghanistan are Arab countries. I might show a small portion of this video as part of a lecture on the inaccuracy of equating Muslims with Arabs.

Another element that really struck me was how certain aspects of the type of masculinity on display here differ from our ideas of how men should act in the U.S. The men are wearing pastel colors that are generally only worn by women in the U.S. (though as this post shows, men are, under certain circumstances, allowed to wear pink). The men also dance closely and hug in ways that would not be acceptable between straight men in the U.S. The video could be used as an example of the social construction of gender, and how the things considered appropriate for men or women to do in one culture may not be viewed the same in others.

Now, I have no idea what the meaning of the guys looking all aghast at the guy in the business suit (at about 3:45) until he starts dancing is. I don’t know what that is supposed to signify–that he’s Westernized and might not take part in the festival? If any readers have any insights on what the meaning of that exchange is, I’d love to hear them.

Thanks, Shoshannah!

UPDATE: Commenter Silviu G. makes a good point:

What struck me was that, in commenting the video, the blogger didn’t emphasize the strict segregation of women and men.

Indeed I didn’t…thanks for pointing out the oversight in my analysis, Silviu! That might add to an interesting discussion of how, in the U.S., we would view men who interacted primarily with one another, hugging and dancing together, and remained entirely separate from one another. In the U.S., such behavior would almost certainly lead to the men being defined as gay; however, I don’t think that is in any way implied in this video, which again points to the variation in norms of gender behavior.

Also, just to clarify…Silviu suggests that I was “praising” Muslim TV for showing women with uncovered hair. That was not my intention–in fact, it would be terribly condescending of me to be all “Hey, look! How nice! They let some women be in public with no headscarves!” My point in mentioning that the women’s heads aren’t covered was just that, at least among my students, there’s often a belief that all Muslim women cover their hair all the time (I’ve had them ask if they have to cover their hair while they sleep), and that this video might be used just to get the point across that there’s no single way that Muslim women dress, any more than all Christian women dress the same, which many of my students found very surprising.

In the 1800s, the Irish (whether in Ireland, Britain, or the U.S.) were often very negatively stereotyped. In many cases the same negative characteristics attributed to Africans and African Americans (sloth, immorality, destructiveness) were often also associated with the Irish. In fact, some scientists believed the Irish were, like Africans, more closely related to apes than to other Europeans, and in some cases in the U.S., Irish immigrants were classified as Blacks, not Whites.

The next three political cartoons from the 1800s were found on the Nevada Department of Education website section about racism (as was the quote about the first cartoon).

This one is titled “The Workingman’s Burden” and depicts “a gleeful Irish peasant carrying his Famine relief money while riding on the back of an exhausted English laborer.” It might make a good comparison to how welfare recipients are viewed in the U.S.

This illustration ran in Harper’s Weekly magazine. Notice how the Irish are depicted as more similar to “Negros” than to “Anglo Teutonic” individuals, and both the Irish and Africans are caricatured as ape-like. It could also be useful for a discussion of scientific racism.

This cartoon, titled “Two Forces,” shows a figure representing Britain protecting a weeping, frightened woman, representing Ireland, from a rampaging Irishman; notice his hat says “anarchy.”

This image, found at the University College Cork website, depicts Daniel O’Connell, a leader of the Irish land reform movement, as an “ogre.” He is ladling poor Irish peasants out of a pot labeled “agitation soup,” and, presumably, cheating them out of money in the guise of helping them.

Here we see the Irish depicted as a Frankensteinian monster in a cartoon that ran in Punch in 1882 (image found at the website for a course at the University of St. Andrews):

These next three all come from the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University. Here we see drunken Irishmen rioting and attacking police:

In this one, John Bull (representing Britain) and Uncle Sam look on as an Irish man engages in reckless destruction; notice the empty bottle in the lower right corner, labeled “drugs”:

Here an ape-like Irish man, again drunk, sits on a powder keg, presumably threatening the entire country:

Finally, this one, published in 1882 (and found at the Michigan State University Museum website), is called “Uncle Sam’s Lodging House” and shows an Irish immigrant causing a commotion while other immigrants (notice the beds are labeled Russian, German, Negro, etc.) try to sleep. The smaller caption under the title says, “Look here, you, everybody else is quiet and peaceable, and you’re all the time a-kicking up a row!”

The message is, of course, that other immigrant groups (including Blacks) settle in and don’t cause problems, while the Irish don’t know how to assimilate or stay in their place.

You might compare these images to this recent post about how symbols of Irishness have lost any real negative implications, such that even politicians in non-Irish-dominated districts feel comfortable using them in campaign materials.

And yes, I know I’ve been posting a lot of stuff about race and ethnicity lately. I’m teaching a class on it this semester–it’s the stuff that I keep coming across while writing lectures.

And I’m dedicating this post to my boyfriend, Burk, who decided to go on a date with me even though, when he asked if I’d have trouble dealing with his hard-drinking Irish-American family, I said I could handle that but wouldn’t put up with any blubbering on about how Angela’s Ashes is the best book ever.

NEW!  This cartoon with poem was published in Life Magazine on May 11th, 1893.  The poem is suggesting that the monkeys in the zoo are sad that they get called by Irish names.

Text:

As we’ve dared to call the monkeys in the Zoo by Irish names, Erin’s sons, in wrath, declare us snobs and flunkies ;
And demand that we withdraw them–nor should we ignore their claims–
For it’s really very hard–upon the monkeys.

UPDATE: In a comment, Macon D asked how I address the ways in which Whites of some ancestries (Irish, Italian, etc.) often point to the fact that there was discrimination against those groups as a way of invalidating arguments about systemic racism. The logic is that both non-Whites and some White groups faced prejudice and discrimination but European groups overcame it through their own hard work, and thus any other group could too. If they continue to experience high levels of poverty, unemployment, or any other social problem, it is due to their own lack of hard work, intelligence, or some other characteristic.

I do indeed discuss this argument at length whenever I teach about race. A great reading to address it is Charles Gallagher’s article “Playing the White Ethnic Card: Using Ethnic Identity to Deny Contemporary Racism,” p. 145-158 in White Out: The Continuing Significance of Racism (2003, Ashley W. Doane and Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, editors, New York: Routledge). The tone might put some students off, because it doesn’t baby them or try to sugar-coat the issue of how Whites use their (often imagined) family stories of discrimination as a way to argue that systemic racism doesn’t exist and that they got to where they are by their family’s hard work, and nothing more. I know other professors often use the “How Jews Became White Folks” reading by Karen Brodkin, which also looks at this issue.

I also spend a good part of the semester looking at how government policies have had the effect of transferring enormous amounts of wealth into the hands of European immigrants and helping them accumulate resources over time–we look at the Homestead Act of 1862, the G.I. Bill (which Black veterans were often excluded from using), and how government subsidies for building suburban subdivisions were actively denied to groups wanting to build integrated communities. All these are examples of ways in which White Americans were aided in acquiring wealth and moving up the socio-economic ladder, while non-Whites often were explicitly excluded from these benefits.

I also point out that, while in these images the Irish are negatively stereotyped, it is clear that they are still viewed less negatively than, say, Africans or African Americans. If the Irish are the “missing link” between Africans and Caucasians…that still means they’re considered more evolved than Africans–at least somewhat more fully human. So even at the height of discrimination against White European groups, that did not necessarily mean they were treated “the same” as, say, American Indians or Blacks.