Sunday, December 6, 2009

When do we cross the line from cartoon to hurtful?


Aunt Jemima Cartoon angers Ohio lawmakers backers.

Would you run an editorial cartoon that depicts an African American lawmaker as Aunt Jemima? Is doing so, really racist or it fair game since she is a politician and in the limelight voluntarily? What is acceptable in this type of circumstance? What does this say about the editors that decided to run something like this without thinking about the double meaning or implications of it?

I realize lawmakers have to have tougher skin when it comes to criticism, but where is the line drawn between fair game and just plain rude/vengeful? I am not even sure where the parallel between Aunt Jemima and a lawmaker is, other than both are African American. According to the editor, it was not meant to be harmful, however, if it was meant to be funny or imply something about this lawmaker, I seemed to have missed the punch line and don't understand the parallel meaning.

3 comments:

Crystal Y. said...

Your post definitely piqued my interest. I had to see the cartoon for myself and the editorial it had accompanied ... here at the Call & Post's website: http://www.cleveland.com/call-and-post/index.ssf/2009/12/an_editorial_we_will_continue.html

Interestingly, the Call & Post touts itself as an African-American newspaper despite the headlines their editorial has made. Considering the context of the cartoon, I understand what they were trying to say about Sen. Turner and their opposition towards her policies regarding the black community. And although the cartoon portrayed Sen. Turner as an "Aunt Jemima" mammy - I don't think the cartoon was overtly racist, just very inflammatory.

I do however think it was a poor way for the Call & Post to express their view of Turner's policies and political behavior, and would not have published it. The mammy image is disgusting and the struggle that African American people have had to endure and are still enduring is too important to exploit.

Andrew Carpenter said...

Though it is hyper local, this is still a fundamental issue.

The First Amendment supports the right of all editors to have poor judgment... to make bad decisions... no matter their race.

jkl said...

I'll tend to agree with the assessment made so far. It is in very poor taste but still protected. It is made in the spirit of political commentary on her stance on the issues, but I'm not sure I would publish it.