obama waffles: racism, values, visual rhetoric, and election 2008

Joan Lowy of the Associated Press reports that “[a]ctivists at a conservative political forum snapped up boxes of waffle mix depicting Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama as a racial stereotype on its front and wearing Arab-like headdress on its top flap.” The forum in question is the Values Voter Summit.

The creators claim they are attempting to play on what they see as Obama’s tendency to waffle on different issues. But, the images—with their accentuated features (huge floppy ears, gigantic white teeth, and dark lips) and depiction of Obama as a Muslim—suggest a racism founded on fear while simultaneously attempting to emasculate Obama by placing him in a position held by Aunt Jemima, thereby castrating his virility (Martin Kevorkian explores fear of black male virility in Color Monitors: The Black Face of Technology in America). They also harken back to a time when racist depictions of African Americans was the norm (taken in a thrift shop in San Marcos, TX):

Aunt Jemina Ad taken by Bill Wolff

The Obama Waffles web site advances the racist conceit of Michele Obama as “domineering, militant, black woman,” reversing the depiction of Aunt Jemima:

These images also recall the accents in the manipulated Time magazine OJ Simpson cover:

Update 9/16/08:

Via Crooks and Liars, The Brooklyn Comedy Company on Obama Waffles and racism against Obama:

Posted in photography | Comments Off on obama waffles: racism, values, visual rhetoric, and election 2008

reading palin/mccain, or “typewriters, baby, typewriters.”

In today’s New York Times, Dowd, Friedman, and Rich hold little back in their reading of the construction and marketing of, rhetoric coming from, and misreading by Sarah Palin and the (seemingly vanishing) John McCain:

Dowd’s first sentence in “Bering Straight Talk”:

I’ve been in Alaska only a week, but I’m already feeling ever so much smarter about Russia.

Rich in “The Palin-Whatshisname Ticket”:

The ambitious Palin and the ruthless forces she represents know it, too. You can almost see them smacking their lips in anticipation, whether they’re wearing lipstick or not.

This was made clear in the most chilling passage of Palin’s acceptance speech. Aligning herself with “a young farmer and a haberdasher from Missouri” who “followed an unlikely path to the vice presidency,” she read a quote from an unidentified writer who, she claimed, had praised Truman: “We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty and sincerity and dignity.” Then Palin added a snide observation of her own: Such small-town Americans, she said, “run our factories” and “fight our wars” and are “always proud” of their country. As opposed to those lazy, shiftless, unproud Americans — she didn’t have to name names — who are none of the above.

There were several creepy subtexts at work here. The first was the choice of Truman. Most 20th-century vice presidents and presidents in both parties hailed from small towns, but she just happened to alight on a Democrat who ascended to the presidency when an ailing president died in office. Just as striking was the unnamed writer she quoted. He was identified by Thomas Frank in The Wall Street Journal as the now largely forgotten but once powerful right-wing Hearst columnist Westbrook Pegler.

Palin, who lies with ease about her own record, misrepresented Pegler’s too. He decreed America was “done for” after Truman won a full term in 1948. For his part, Truman regarded the columnist as a “guttersnipe,” and with good reason. Pegler was a rabid Joe McCarthyite who loathed F.D.R. and Ike and tirelessly advanced the theory that American Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe (“geese,” he called them) were all likely Communists.

Friedman (in a restatement of his ideas recently on Fresh Air) in “Making America Stupid”:

Why would Republicans, the party of business, want to focus our country on breathing life into a 19th-century technology — fossil fuels — rather than giving birth to a 21st-century technology — renewable energy? As I have argued before, it reminds me of someone who, on the eve of the I.T. revolution — on the eve of PCs and the Internet — is pounding the table for America to make more I.B.M. typewriters and carbon paper. “Typewriters, baby, typewriters.”

Of course, we’re going to need oil for many years, but instead of exalting that — with “drill, baby, drill” — why not throw all our energy into innovating a whole new industry of clean power with the mantra “invent, baby, invent?” That is what a party committed to “change” would really be doing. As they say in Texas: “If all you ever do is all you’ve ever done, then all you’ll ever get is all you ever got.”

I dwell on this issue because it is symbolic of the campaign that John McCain has decided to run. It’s a campaign now built on turning everything possible into a cultural wedge issue — including even energy policy, no matter how stupid it makes the voters and no matter how much it might weaken America.

Posted in generalnews, reading | Comments Off on reading palin/mccain, or “typewriters, baby, typewriters.”

classifying writings

The October 2008 issue of Harper’s (subscription required) has a hilarious excerpt from Chris Offutt’s “The Offutt Guide to Literary Terms” (.pdf) which was published a year ago in the Seneca Review. A few goodies:

MEMOIR: From the Latin memoria, meaning “memory,” a popular form in which the writer remembers entire passages of dialogue from the past, with the ultimate goal of blaming the writer’s parents for his current psychological challenges.

CHICK LIT: A patriarchal term of oppression for heterosexual female writing; also, a marketing means to phenomenal readership and prominent bookstore space.

ACADEMIC ESSAY: Alas, an unread form required for tenure.

COMPOSITION WRITING: An academic development in response to the economic needs of recently graduated MFA students.

POEM: Prose scraps.

PROSE POEM: Either a poem with no line breaks or a lyric essay with no indentation. No one knows.

Posted in academia, classification | Comments Off on classifying writings