When does the historical context of an image carry racial or other discriminatory implications, even though it might be neutral in other settings? Recent events in Galveston, Texas, will add some clarity to this discussion, as I will explain below.
Some readers may recall my exchange with Howard Wasserman last April, in which we discussed the anti-Semitic implications of a cartoon in the International New York Times. The image showed a dog with the face of Benjamin Netanyahu, wearing a Star of David, leading a blind, kippah-wearing Donald Trump.
Howard initially suggested that the cartoon was acceptable, comparing it to a hypothetical caricature of Vladimir Putin:
Hypo: A cartoonist wants to make the point that Vladimir Putin and Russia are dictating U.S. policy and that President Trump is following without thought or consideration and without knowing where he is going. The cartoonist depicts Putin as a guide dog, leading a sightless Trump; the guide dog has Putin's face and a collar with the Russian flag, while Trump is shown as a sightless man with dark glasses, with the guide dog on a lead taking him he knows not where.
I presume the meaning of that cartoon would be clear and that such a cartoon would be ok. If so, I do not understand why this cartoon becomes filled with anti-Semitic tropes when making what I believe to be the same point about Netanyahu and Israel.
I replied that the anti-Semitism arises from the context, evoking an ancient image of the wily Jew tricking an unsuspecting -- in this case blind -- Gentile into following his directions. The Putin comparison was inapposite because there is no comparable anti-Russian myth or stereotype. Howard ended up mostly agreeing with me, saying: "I am persuaded by the arguments about the yarmulke [but] I remain troubled by the idea that Israel and Israeli leaders are immune from certain criticisms or certain forms of criticism because of historic anti-Semitism and the Jewish nature of Israel."
A recent arrest in Galveston, I believe, demonstrates my point even more clearly. The photo below shows an African American man being led on a rope by mounted police officers:
There is just no way to look at this image without evoking memories of the Jim Crow era, or worse. For example:
"When I looked at the picture, I saw utter disrespect for another human being. The first thing that came to my mind was this is 2019 and not 1819," said Houston NAACP president James Douglas.
Douglas said the image is disturbing because it harkens back to the dark days of the antebellum South when black people were forced to walk alongside mounted slave owners. During the Civil Rights Movement, mounted patrol units often evoked fear among peaceful protesters.
A similar picture, but with a different arrestee -- say, a hippie or a frat boy or even Vladimir Putin -- would not have the same racial implications. (The Galveston police have apologized, and rightly so. The arrest for "suspicion of criminal trespassing.)
As I said about the Trump/Netanyahu cartoon, historical context matters.
Comments