Walking into the room with your pencil in your hand

This may be the juxtaposition of the year:

Both are by Jerry Holbert, the first version as it appeared in his home paper, the Boston Herald, the second as it appeared on GoComics, a syndicate editor having flagged the offensive implication. Michael Cavna has the details of how such a thing could happen.

And, yes, running it is a violation of the Prime Directive that we don't run bad cartoons here simply for the sake of trashing them. Or, at least, it's a violation of the first clause.

I'm not running Holbert's piece simply to pile snark upon it but to point out something really distressing: He didn't mean to be racist.

He didn't realize watermelon jokes carried a racial connotation.

Really? Apparently so. He has no history of racist jokes and says he had no racist intentions with this one.

It reminds me of when, less than a year into my driver's license, I blew through a red light, was ticketed, and then told the judge that it had been unintentional, that I hadn't seen it.

He responded that my explanation frightened him a great deal more than if I said that I'd seen the light but decided not to stop. He'd rather have a scofflaw on the road than someone who wasn't paying attention.

I feel the same way, not just about Jerry Holbert but about anyone who somehow has managed to pile up 20 or 30 years of living in this country, on this planet, and remained unaware that watermelon jokes are racist.

Even after six years of blatantly racist watermelon jokes about the nation's first black president.

It's one thing to be an actual, purposeful, out-front racist, and Holbert's cartoon has brought forth plenty of defenders who are just that.

But there are also some genuine expressions of surprise from people who never knew that watermelon had that association.

Like that traffic judge, I'm more distressed by those who pay no attention to their surroundings than by those who act through ill-will.

It's disheartening and kind of scary to think a literate, mentally competent, well-intentioned person could somehow manage to remain so blissfully unaware of what's going on around them.

And then vote.

Do they not follow the news?

Los Alamitos Mayor Dean Grose heard calls for his resignation this week when he forwarded an e-mail showing a watermelon patch on the White House lawn under the title: "No Easter egg hunt this year."

Grose has apologized and said he wasn't aware of the racial stereotype that blacks like watermelon. -- February, 2009

And I would think these well-intentioned people would be particularly humiliated when their own innocent-if-inexplicable ignorance is being faked by contemptible people who are genuinely racist but don't have to guts to say so.

You are, after all, judged by the company you keep, and I've said before that cartoonists should read their comments, think about who they seem to be appealing to and fine-tune their work accordingly.

But who are the fakers and who are the genuinely ignorant?

Are there really people who can't understand that I can say, "My wife's really being a bitch about this," but that you can't say to me, "Your wife is a bitch"?

But, yes, there are people who don't understand why I can jokingly call another Irish-American a "mackerel snapper" but would be offended if someone of another ethnicity used the term, or made a joke about drunken Irishmen that I might have laughed at if it came from inside the group.

And there are people who can't understand why black people can toss the n-word around and white people aren't supposed to.

Even after it is explained.

Over and over and over again.

But after one or two explanations, we've transitioned from naive ignorance to willful ignorance.

Or from passive, thoughtless racism to active, toxic racism.

Look: If I tell you that I am a recovering alcoholic and can't be around the stuff, you don't have to be embarrassed about having brought a bottle of wine to dinner at my house. You didn't know.

But now you do know, so don't bring a bottle of Jack Daniels the next time you visit, because now you are exhibiting a level of thoughtlessness that -- even without evil intent -- is offensive.

And don't give me excuses.

I grew up in an extremely rural Northeast community where there were no black people for an hour's drive in any direction. But we had television sets and newspapers and magazines and books.

It was well before the Internet or cable, but we were able to figure it out with nothing but dead trees and three TV channels.

Some of us were racists, but none of us were fools, and that's pretty much what the choices boil down to.

A couple of points:

First of all, I don't care what you think of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Maybe you're right. Maybe they are grandstanders, maybe they are stupid.

But, even if you're right about them, there has to be a better defense than "I'm not the biggest fool in the room."  Like not being a fool at all.

And "We're sorry if anyone was offended" is not the same as "We made a mistake." 

"We're sorry if" puts the burden on the readers. "We're sorry you reacted that way."  (Holbert has conceded that the error was his. Fair enough. The Herald's part still seems wishy-washy.)

And for god's sake, stop saying, "It was just a joke."

Granted, in this case, there was no attempt to make a political point, but, given that it was a political cartoon, there should have been. And if you think of political cartoons simply as inconsequential jokes, then you clearly don't understand why they exist.

Which brings us to the issue of professional competence: Political cartoons are made up of metaphors and symbols.

If you are a cartoonist, or the editor of a cartoonist, you should understand metaphors and symbols, the tools of your trade.

Specifically, when it comes to ethnicity and race, you should know not to make a reference to a Jew as a stingy pawnbroker, or draw a Mexican sleeping under his sombrero, or show a Chinese person swapping Rs and Ls and doing laundry.

And neither should you depict a black person eating watermelon or as a monkey.

Yes, even if there was a raging chimpanzee in the recent news. 

This isn't "political correctness." It's basic cultural literacy. Screwing it up is either intentional racism or jaw-dropping incompetence.

I don't ask for genius, but I wouldn't hire a carpenter who thought wrenches were for driving nails and didn't know there was something called a "screwdriver" that didn't involve orange juice.

I expect a workman to be familiar with the contents of his toolbox, and, again, like that traffic judge, I would rather take my chances sharing the road with unrepentent scofflaws than risk the unpredictable blunders of those who don't know what's happening.

 

 

 

Comments

[Richard J. Marcej]

You nailed it Mike, there's really nothing more that I could add. Though with every point that you made my only conclusion is that I'd never read another editorial cartoon by Holbert again (I wouldn't go far as to say that he should lose his job, I don't make those decisions) but his (and the Harold's editors) blatant ignorance tells me that any future work from them will be laced with the same ignorance. And in this day-and-age of numerous outlets, thee are plenty of other places to read cartoons and opinions on the net that I'd only be wasting my time reading his.

[Richard J. Marcej]

Oh, and perhaps the WORST thing about this cartoon (either version) is that it's not even funny.

[Mark Jackson]

"We're sorry if anyone was offended" is the father of "If you're offended at everything the problem is with *you*," which I'm seeing more of these days.

[Wes Rand]

That is probably the most damning thing to say about Holbert: that he only offends people unintentionally.

[John Mara]

At first glance I thought it was a comment on the fact the people who attack the President are for the most part motivated by racism.

But, given the cartoonist's comments, I guess not.