I’ll say right up front that I think the racism that I see (indeed the little monkey clown thing) is unintentional. I betcha the t-shirt was designed by a kid and I am 99.9% sure that the kid who designed this didn’t say, “I think it would be awesome to use this unschooling conference as an opportunity for some ironic old school racism.”
(This is a t-shirt for the unschoolers conferences that happens up in Sandusky. Again, click to see bigger. I’ll also give you the heads up that the gathering is mostly made up of white families.)
I think what’s going on here is privilege because someone should have caught this and said, “Whoa! This is not the kind of message we meant to send and certainly could be extremely offensive to our black families. Let’s err on the side of caution, shall we? And not let our good intentions allow a logo that could be misconstrued.”
So basically, those of you who said, ok I can see it but it wasn’t intentional — do you think it’s ok for the conference logo? If someone does say, “Hey this image offends me” should they change it? Or is it enough to say, well, I see where you’re coming from but we didn’t MEAN for it to be offensive so please assume our good intentions and buy the t-shirt anyway. Do good intentions cover all ills?
Because I think missing the potential of this image to be insulting is privilege but I think making excuses for it once you can see it is racist.
Personally the image looks way too much like this or this or this for me to feel comfortable buying one of the conference t-shirts and I think someone should have caught it and the fact that no one did is disappointing to me.
And you know, assuming that some enterprising young unschooling kid designed this, what a wonderful opportunity to talk about historical images of racism and how what was meant to be (I assume?) a happy clown could turn into a PR nightmare with some bad choices at the printers. I’m sure the organizers (because again, I’m assuming this was unintentional, too) would appreciate the heads up and the chance to make good. Which is why I’m gonna write and say something.
Possibly related posts:
Aw, c’mon! Monkeys ARE dark-colored — shardes of brown, black,gray, and tan. What other color would be used for a a monkey in a picture?
This is a 3-color marketing piece. What do you make of half of the people being “brown” and half of them being “blue?” Does that mean this t-shirt shows prejudice against white people because there are no white people in the picture? Is this promoting a get-together to which only African Americans and Smurfs are invited?
Racism is not completely dead in America, but nearly. And some people just seem to be threatened by that fact. They must reach and reach and reach to find it. How about confronting real racism the (few) times it really appears?
Wow? This:
Racism is not completely dead in America, but nearly
Are we living in the same America? Cause this isn’t what I see AT ALL
How in the world we can think racisim is still much of a problem with a black president, a former black secretary of state, 3 (I think) black supreme court justices, a very large number of black people serving in other levels of givernment, and many, many, many high-level black leaders of both small and extra-large corporations, I can’t fugure. School teachers — and not just in inner city schools — celebrities, and every other level of society has numerous African Americans. Unless you’re looking for an equal number in every position, even though there’s not an equal number in our pooulation, I can’t see how you could think it’s a big problem. I’m a WASP with lots of black friends, two black ex-girlfriends, etc. I have MAYBE spoken to 5 peole in my 40+ years who are truly racists, and probablt half of themhave died from old age now. But, then, I don’t go around trying to pick out little things like this and call them racist, either.
Oh, yeah, you’re right… one black president, one (former) black secretary of state) and two black supreme court justices in 200 YEARS proves we are no longer racist.
And the disproportionate number of blacks in prisons, on death row, with children in the care of social services, in low paying jobs, with lower levels of education… that means nothing, right?
Well, it absolutely does prove the point, Amanda!
Otherwise, I guess you’d also have to say we’re a nation that doesn’t use the Internet. Just because we’ve been communicating on it for 17 years or so, for 200 YEARS we haven’t! I mean, 17 years worth on on-line activity in 200 YEARS doesn’t mean we use the internet now, does it?
Please think. If for the majority of 200 years we had no Black people in power. Now in the last 20 years or so we do (Clarence Thomas has been on the SC longer than either of us has known about the Internet). Doesn’t that show we’ve severely reduced the problems that were legitimately there BEFORE 20 years ago? “All of a sudden” (not really) we no longer hold black people back! Your argument very adeptly proves my point.
In other words, you don’t look at 200 years to see how things are today. You look at today.
And could the disproportionate number of blacks in prison, etc., have something to do with a disproportionate number committing crimes for which they are caught?
Again — and I would say this to every one of my black friends or ex-girlfriends, and nearly all of them would agree with me — those stats simply show that there is pervasive an African American subculture that encourages both crime and social dependence (both of those come from the same attitude — give me what you’ve got). That is the source of the problem, and people looking harder and harder to find traces of racism unwittingly perpetuate that. In the 1950’s, you didn’t have to look at a logo on a T-shirt. You just needed to look at the white-on-black violence, the black people at the back of the bus, the “colored” drinking fountains, etc. Now you have to go for the obscure stuff to keep the argument for prevalent American racism alive.
I’ll only add that it was a white Texan president who appointed the black secretary of state, and a black Chicagoan president who appointed the white secretary of state.
Look for it? I don’t have to look for it, Nebulous. Believe me – it finds me all the time – like when white people openly glare at me for daring to appear in my small hometown with my biracial daughter, or when a “justice” of the peace in Louisiana refuse to marry a “mixed race” couple, or when a black student tells me that in the last 6 months they’ve been pulled over while driving, without any warning or ticket as a result FIVE TIMES, which has NEVER happened to me (or my white husband) in SIXTEEN YEARS of driving. BTW, they also completely searched her car looking for drugs, which much to the policeman’s surprise and dismay weren’t there – that’s never happened to me OR ANY WHITE PERSON I KNOW either.
But it must be nice to sit and talk with your black friends about how it’s the inherent failure of the black race to thrive in our oh-so-welcoming country. Privilege isn’t good for anything if it doesn’t make you feel good about where you are in the social hierarchy.
Dawn, I’m sorry I’ve hijacked this thread. I’ll stop replying now
Nebulous, you can contact me through my blog if you’d like.
Oh hijack away! I don’t know why Nebulous even came by here. If he’d read a bit of my blog he’d know he wouldn’t find support for his ignorance here.
Apparently, Nebulous, you’ve never graced the south with your presence. Racism is alive and well. Ten minutes in Selma, Alabama should prove my point.
Jennifer, you’re quite wrong about that. I spent 3 years in Charleston, SC and 8 in Memphis. In fact, on my first trip to Memphis before moving there, I wantrf to check out Beale Street. I got lost, stopped at a 7-11 in “the projects,” and asked directions. The (black) men who gave me directions landed me in West Memphis, AK. I realized later that I was only about 2 miles away, and the directions from where I was to where I wanted to go were simple. They didn’t like a decently dressed white guy in their neighborhood. I made the assumption that I was the victim of racism that day.
Dawn — I didn’t come here looking for support, and I am well aware of you and your writing, and I’ve also had conversations with you in person. I don’t look for others to pat me on the back. I care about genuine thinking.
Amanda – I feel terrible that those you care about have experienced those things. I am vehemently oppoosed to racism, and I do recognize it where it exists. I hope spoken out both publically (in editorual letters to editors) and privately about it. I know there are pockets where things are worse than what I experience day-to-day. I have carefully acknowledge throughout this that it *does* exist, but not much. You have not acknowledged that it doesn’t exist much yet, despite the evidence I’ve provided, nor have you responded directly to any of the evidence I’ve presented.
Oh lord, I looked at my statcounter and I think I know who this is. This is why I don’t engage with people who are fundamentally coming from a place that makes no sense to me. I think you’re wrong, period and I think your “evidence” holds no water. I’m happy to help you with wordpress but I’m not going to talk to you about race stuff anymore although I’d encourage you to check out this blog:
http://contexts.org/socimages/
When you posted last night I had to look for a second, but once my eyes landed on the monkey I said to myself “oh no.”
I assume like you that it’s unintentional but I’m glad you’re contacting them to give them an opportunity to make it right.
When I looked at the small version, I thought, “oh, a monkey, no big deal.” But when I clicked to see the larger version, the monkey just looks uncomfortably close to a person in blackface or a representation of a black person as a monkey…it’s a hard call…
That’s the piece I think is interesting — where Liz say it’s a hard call. Why is it a hard call? I certainly think the organizers are lovely people (they do this conference as volunteers and it is A LOT of work!) who would certainly never never intentionally put something out that could be construed as racist. But they did and even if it’s just “uncomfortably close”, it’s too close. It’s the very first thing I noticed — it looked like one of those old cartoons. To me it’s unacceptable whatever the intent.
See, I think one of the problems is that many of us look to excuse racism (unintentional or not), which continues to send the message that it’s ok to be racist if we’re not actual RACISTS. I mean, that’s what Miley Cyrus said after she insulted a whole host of Asian people with her slanty eyes picture. And it’s what Rosie O’Donnel said after her “ching chong” comments. But racism isn’t just intent — it’s also having the privilege to use intent as an excuse not to be responsible for our actions.
I am sure this is supposed to be a clown, absolutely. However whatever it was *supposed* to be, it looks like a racist image. Therefore it’s not ok, period.
So I missed the discussion of the first image… and I think that Liz is right – it looks much different in the small version than the big version.
Honestly, it didn’t trip my radar, but your point about privilege keeping us from seeing things that would trip our radar is a good one.
But perhaps it is just an unfortunate color scheme and a weird cartoon – not intending to be racist does not excuse racist images, but this is so subtle I just don’t know.
I don’t think this is the same as Miley Cyrus or Rosie… they can’t credibly claim they didn’t mean to insult the groups they were mocking. I mean, really.
Regardless, if people are offended by it, then I think it should go, you know? It’s certainly not my place (Ms. White McWhitePerson) to say whether someone *should* be offended if an image is offensive, y’ know? It strikes me as the Saturn ad discussed elsewhere, regardless of intent, it needs to go.
I definitely don’t think “not intending to be racist” is an acceptable excuse. It feels like a hard call to me because I’m not black, so it’s hard for me to say if it crosses the line into being offensive or not…it’s not as blatant as the Miley Cyrus incident, but it is certainly questionable. Maybe being questionable should be enough to raise a red flag.
No, racism is not nearly dead as Nebulous says! Have you ever said that around a person of color?! They’d laugh you off the planet!
The problem with this depiction of a monkey (if that’s what it is — I saw a clown in blackface) is that monkeys with these kind of comic features were frequently used to represent black people in America’s most racist times.
right, I’m with malinda. It’s not that people are LOOKING for something to cry “racism!” about, it’s that this particular image is historically racist and furthermore, I don’t even understand what the monkey has to do with the Unschooler’s theme.
Good for you for writing a letter. I think part of the reason people think racisim is so rare is that people (me included) don’t speak up when they see it. As for me I’m black(ish) and I see a clown in blackface, but if you say its supposed to be a monkey I’ll take your word for it. I’m not sure “offended” is the right word for what I felt. My reaction was for along the lines of “seriously?!” with an eyeroll. I definately would not purchase that shirt but I’m so used to the ignorance I probably wouldn’t have written a letter either. Do I think the artist or organizers were trying to discriminate? No, but by not noticing I certainly don’t feel welcome at the event. If it were something I were attending I would spend the entire time wondering which of my fellow attendees I needed to be wary of.
You know, I’m not even 100% sure that it was unintentional in the sense of “I didn’t realize this image would cross the line into looking like another class of image that is soaked in racism.” I could EASILY imagine someone (especially a child) drawing that image with precisely that set of racist images from the past floating around in his/her mind. He or she may not realize the context, it may not be intentional, but when I look at that face and those ears, it’s really hard for me to think, “hey, someone came up with those ears and that smile having zero exposure whatsoever to an incredibly common and blatantly racist set of images.”
The artist may have the privilege of not knowing the context, but that doesn’t seem to be the point to me.
I would definitely write a letter and I would definitely not buy the T-shirt. No way could my kids wear something like that in any context around here whatsoever without another kid’s parents coming up and saying to me, WTF? Why is your kid wearing a T-shirt with that kind of image on it? Have you lost your mind?
It’s not OK for a conference logo because it’s poorly done from start to finish … including the oblivious inclusion of a historically racist image. And, by oblivious, I mean that someone/s who didn’t have to think about things like racist overtones approved the final art.
OK, I have another take on this. I don’t understand why pictures of monkeys are considered racist. Yeah, humanized depictions of monkeys that were used to depict black people in the old days are racist, and to the extent that this picture is recalling that type of picture (with which I am insufficiently familiar to see).
Do people think curious george is racist (I mean, not the whole story, but just his picture)? I think monkeys have gotten a bad rep because of the racist past that we need to work against — in my book, it’s racist to think that pictures of monkeys are racist, ’cause it implies an acceptance of the ridiculous idea that black people either look like monkeys or are closer to them (which I simply have never understood).
And, to take the Saturn advert with the green bowling ball. I’m just not sure whether pulling the ad (assuming that the person was indeed chosen because she bowls & the ball was chosen because it was her favorite) isn’t more racist than not pulling it. Pictures of black people eating water melon aren’t racist, in principle, only when they’re over used as a stereotype.
(and, yes, intention is irrelevant)
I don’t think it looks that much like a monkey. It’s not naturalistic in the way that the penguin is, or the profiles of the people.
That particular image doesn’t look like a monkey the way that Curious George does. It looks like a set of blackface-animal images used to denigrate black people looked. There’s a big difference.
Oh, and as the world changes, as history gets left behind, images that recall racism might indeed change, and get left behind. Take the black jockey thing. Some day, there is going to be a generation of children who have never seen it, never at all, perhaps not even in the history books. The day will arrive sooner in some areas of the world than others (for example, I suspect my children would have no idea of the racist past of that image — it simply doesn’t exist in their environment). The world can change (even if racism in no where near dead, the iconography of racism will move with the times).
I’m glad you’re writing the letter–maybe it was supposed to look like a monkey (in fact, I’m sure it was), but it looks instead just like the racist images I’ve seen in things like Little Nemo cartoons. Even if it wasn’t meant to be racist (and again, I’m sure it wasn’t), I too get that weird “Oh no” jolt when I see it. A bad call on their part.
I consider intent in *how* I respond to racism. Intent doesn’t excuse racism or mean it doesn’t need to be addressed.
When thinking about the importance of intent, I use this example. If my child was playing with a friend, got angry and knocked the friend down, what would I do? If my child was playing with a friend and accidentally knocked the friend down, what would I do? Just because my child didn’t *intend* to hurt the friend in the latter example does not mean that my child would not need to apologize. If you hurt someone, whether you mean to or not, you should say sorry. Intent would matter to me in that my child would probably get a time-out or some other consequence for the first offense but not the second.
When I observe racism, I think it is important to confront it, regardless of intent. I would likely be gentler in my approach to someone who intended no harm than to someone who was making a conscious decision to say or do something racist.
I really like what you say here and how you said it. Thanks!