tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post115472932092782289..comments2024-03-18T22:21:33.261-07:00Comments on The Debate Link: Friday Round-Up (Too Tired Edition)David Schraubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1155002825795154092006-08-07T19:07:00.000-07:002006-08-07T19:07:00.000-07:00Matthew, perhaps David's objection might be the s...Matthew, perhaps David's objection might be the same if Lieberman used Shakespear's Shylock as a cultural and racial monotype to gain the Jewish vote.<BR/><BR/>At least, I would hope so... but then David has never expressed any opposition to Shakespear, so I wouldn't know.The probligohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17882103150181414348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1154878684882675472006-08-06T08:38:00.000-07:002006-08-06T08:38:00.000-07:00To clarify, I really do man the above question as ...To clarify, I really do man the above question as inquisitve and not argumentative. I realize that the blog post was, at the very least, in bad taste, and not the kind of political disourse I like to see. And this may very well be a case of "Matt's lived in Texas too long and just doesn't get it" - because while I see that the post is not good, I don't understand why the blackface imagery is just 100% never justifiable in political satire.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1154877669256993202006-08-06T08:21:00.000-07:002006-08-06T08:21:00.000-07:00David, I'm a little confused about your objection ...David, I'm a little confused about your objection to the "blackfacing" add, just as I've been confused by the entire scandal. What is it about the depiction of a candidate in blackface that is prima facie unnaceptable in political debate? I understand that actual blackface performances are rooted in racism and usually had severely racist connotations. As such, if a candidate actually performed in blackface it would be clearly deserving of disgust, outrage, and probably confusion too since the idea of anyone actually doing that today is more than a little absurd.<BR/><BR/>But what is it about the satirical use of the blackface imagery that deserves such strong condemnation? I read your post about it's use in the Maryland race. I think there were two significant differences. (1) The image was accompanied by the "sambo" rhetoric, making it a very clear use of racial stereotyping to smear a candidate. (2) Being a contest between two black candidates, I think the "who's REALLY black?" kind of bickering is bad politics in that it ignores substantive issues, and secondly, is essentializing (it assumes there are "black" political stances). <BR/><BR/> Neither of those dynamics apply to this race.<BR/><BR/> The Lamont blogger offers two justifications for the image. (1) Lieberman's campaign engages in race-baiting, and (2) Lieberman is distorting his record to appeal to black voters. Now, I don't know enough about the details of the CT to validate or invalidate either of those arguments. But by the reaction of yourself and the diatribe that you link to, it seems that doesn't matter. Your position seems to be that even if those things are true it couldn't possibly justify the racist imagery. In fact the post you link to respons to these defenses with a rhetorical question ("I suppose this justifies what you did?!?!?"). That's clearly question-begging because the blogger's response presuposses that the imagery is not justifiable. The whole post is just that kind of blustering outrage that lacks any substantive argumentation.<BR/><BR/> So here's my question, what is it about depicting Liberman in blackface to make the satirical point that he is distorting his image and engaging in race-baiting to win black votes that is categorically reprehensible? Maybe those justifications aren't true, as I said I don't know. But assuming they are, why do we automatically condemn that particular image?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com