CNN has aired its long form piece Black in America as reported by Soledad O'Brien. Tackling something like this is remarkable, yet foolhardy at the same time. Remarkable for trying to shed light on race issues the so often get swept under the rug on the cutting room floor of major TV networks. Foolhardy for trying to do more than scratch the surface by repeatedly setting off explosions in a field of stereotypical land mines.
Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native American and Whites in America know what their experience is and members of these groups tend to know what the experience is like for others of their race who are in the same or different socio-economic, geographic and cultural groups. Oftentimes people of mixed race or those who have family members of different races have an understanding of navigating race in America from that perspective.
Series like CNN's Black in America try to explain race to those who do not understand and lack perspective, but it does so in a way that people may end up with a misunderstanding because the piece makes sweeping generalizations. But that is why we shouldn't depend on it too much. It goes back to the responsibility of parenting and other methods of socialization to shape our thoughts — not just the media.
At the UNITY journalist convention in Chicago on July 24 O'Brien said Black in America was done to start a conversation. Hopefully it has done that and hopefully the talking points draw from many references and sources other than CNN.
A lot of aspects of blacks in America were not covered in the piece. The best and most insightful interview O'Brien did in the piece was with Spike Lee. To get a more authentic, less staged insight into Black America don't forget that "good" art imitates life. I recommend Spike's movies, namely "School Daze" and "Do the Right Thing."
In "School Daze" Black men who are college students at Mission College are confronted by townies who question their "blackness" and they flip the question right back on them.
For more of the big picture on race in America "Crash" is a must see . . . a least twice.
The point is lets not wait until CNN does Hispanics in America, Middle-class White women in America, Homosexuals in America, Unemployed College Graduates in America for us to start trying to understand the intricacies of countless groups.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
A Chicagoan's take on New Yorker Cartoon
As a black man who grew up minutes from where Sen. Barack Obama made his mark as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago— as someone who has gotten a haircut in the barber shop that Obama has frequented for years, I am not offended by the editorial political cartoon in the New Yorker.
If a reader/viewer is brash and reacts solely on emotions to the jarring nature of the illustration he or she has simply missed the point.
Obama dressed in "Muslim" garb, his wife, Michelle Obama, as a rifle toting rebel, an American flag burning in the nearby fireplace and their so-called "terrorist fist jab" illustrate the extremist caricature of the Obamas that SOME in the Republican party are hoping to draw up in hopes of leading to Obama's political demise during the 2008 presidential election.
I listen to the conservative talk radio hosts and I watch a certain news station to hear and understand the thoughts of journalists that are touted by Republicans. You have to have a varied perspective so you to understand political commentary. Some people, most people don't care that much to acquire this understanding and they have the right not to care.
But here is the deal on the New Yorker cover:
Does this editorial political cartoon mean the New Yorker supports this view?
NO. Upon closer look the magazine leans in the opposite direction.
Does the New Yorker have the First Amendment right to use this depiction?
ABSOLUTELY, YES.
Again, everyone is not going to understand this editorial political cartoon. If the Obama campaign is expressing their dismay because they are not sure that voters are going to comprehend the New Yorker cover then I can see their angle. They may want to appear proactive in their "Fighting the Smears," effort I can see that logic.
But if the Obama campaign is disturbed by this for any other reason then in my opinion they are off base.
If a reader/viewer is brash and reacts solely on emotions to the jarring nature of the illustration he or she has simply missed the point.
Obama dressed in "Muslim" garb, his wife, Michelle Obama, as a rifle toting rebel, an American flag burning in the nearby fireplace and their so-called "terrorist fist jab" illustrate the extremist caricature of the Obamas that SOME in the Republican party are hoping to draw up in hopes of leading to Obama's political demise during the 2008 presidential election.
I listen to the conservative talk radio hosts and I watch a certain news station to hear and understand the thoughts of journalists that are touted by Republicans. You have to have a varied perspective so you to understand political commentary. Some people, most people don't care that much to acquire this understanding and they have the right not to care.
But here is the deal on the New Yorker cover:
Does this editorial political cartoon mean the New Yorker supports this view?
NO. Upon closer look the magazine leans in the opposite direction.
Does the New Yorker have the First Amendment right to use this depiction?
ABSOLUTELY, YES.
Again, everyone is not going to understand this editorial political cartoon. If the Obama campaign is expressing their dismay because they are not sure that voters are going to comprehend the New Yorker cover then I can see their angle. They may want to appear proactive in their "Fighting the Smears," effort I can see that logic.
But if the Obama campaign is disturbed by this for any other reason then in my opinion they are off base.
Labels:
Barack Obama,
Cartoon,
Editorial,
Michelle Obama,
Politics,
The New Yorker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)