Images of Murder and Torture emerge against Obama and his wife
These images are viscerally offensive. But they were not created by those you would expect. The second photo appeared on the cover of a Georgia newspaper. The first illustration was created by a liberal, white blogger at Daily Kos named ONECITIZEN - trying to make a point. This is unsettling because I expect violent, angry, white racists to always fantasize about raping, torturing and possessing strong, black women. They will always twist their craving for sexual dominance into some kind of hollow-piped rhetoric trumpeting racial purity and white superiority.
But I expect more from people who call themselves allies. And I expect more from “legitimate” journalists and I condemn the choices of both images to illustrate important stories. I don’t believe the intent was to incite violence against Obama or his wife, but these are boneheaded choices sinking to the lowest, most incendiary perspective. Why not a photo of a hooded Klansman in the crosshairs? That would have actually made more sense since the article details how agents have infiltrated white supremacist groups. Maybe no one in crosshairs? There are smarter ways to make a point. But in no way would it ever be acceptable to put Barack Obama, a United States Senator poised to be the Democratic Party’s nominee for President of the United States, in the crosshairs of a rifle scope. Or to depict Michelle Obama being lynched. Never.
But the ‘Roswell Beacon’ is not alone in it’s offense. I get the feeling that they are tapping into.
It is also unacceptable for a national television news and radio host to speak of Michelle Obama and lynching parties.
It is also unacceptable for a national political figure to joke about Barack Obama ducking in fear as a gun is pointed at him.
Yes, I know what’s being said around the dinner table, at the bar and in the lunchroom. I’ve heard it, too.
“Someone’s gonna shoot him.”
“He’s going to get shot.”
I’ve heard this now dozens of times. I am surprised by how many times I’ve heard it and from the breadth of people I have heard it from. From older black ladies at the beauty parlor, to young activist people of color, from Wall Street professionals to conservative political pundits, a lot of people are saying it. I know you’ve heard it. Heck, you may have even said it. But what bothers me most is that it’s not said in a tone of defiant derision, but with a kind of agitated resignation.
Well I strongly disagree. I do not believe that Barack Obama will be shot or assassinated. I do not believe that evil will necessarily triumph over good. I am not naive, of course Barack Obama is a target, as were Presidents Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford. I also believe George Bush and Dick Cheney are targets, but what magazine or newspaper would put them on their covers in crosshairs or talk about lynching their wives?
I pretty much stick to nuts and bolts on this site. But I firmly believe in the power of visualization as a tool that guides outcomes. I for one refuse to accept that the worst possible outcome is the probable outcome. I believe there are more of us than there are of them. And by them I mean angry, violent, destroyers who use the issue of “race” to shroud their sociopathic lack of human empathy.
But it will take more than “happy thoughts” to have the country many of us believe in. There is little room on the sidelines now. Speak up when you see or hear something wrong. Pick up the phone and make a call. Send an email. Your voice, our voices must be heard. There are more of us than there are of them. Please remember that.
Hat Tip to Amani for letting me know about this.
Read More - What About Our Daughters
Read More - Electronic Village
Posted by: Carmen D. in 
you are correct we should expect more from our allies, for them to strive for ratings and hits by race baiting is unacceptable thanks for the links I will make sure to add my two cents to onecitizen.
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:55 am -Excellent post. I’m glad that you’ve shared this information with your blog readers…
peace, Villager
May 22nd, 2008 at 1:30 pm -Yes. Of course I’ve heard this from people–from the start of the election–and it always made me angry in some way that I couldn’t articulate. Thanks for putting it into words for me.
May 22nd, 2008 at 4:58 pm -straight up.
May 22nd, 2008 at 6:08 pm -Definitely no excuse or any good reason to use those images. Simply inexcusable.
Although I would agree it isn’t a given that he will get shot, to deny he is at a bigger risk than McCain (or other white candidates) isn’t reality. Aside from ex-first lady Clinton (who’s had it protection for years), he was the only candidate to had Secret Service protect him from the get go. This usually doesn’t happen with regular nominees. Not saying he will definitely get shot… but if I was him, I would very certainly think about the possibility.
Point taken though that we should just accept it as normal, ok or in any way shape or form acceptable.
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:09 am -sorry… i ment “we should NOT just accept it as normal…”
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:10 am -[...] Links to the latest craziness at All About Race. [...]
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:26 am -I think I would say the images are a gratuitous attempt to exploit a history of racial tension in order to evoke a sensational reaction.
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:31 pm -Good post, Carmen! The racialized imagery that comes out of white liberals minds is always…interesting.
Here’s how I see it: most mainstream white liberal bloggers are not allies to people of color, plain and simple. They’ve made this abundantly clear in many ways. They make bleating noises such as “I support minority rights”, “there are tons of minorities in the area where I work and I have no problem with them”, “I support Obama so I can’t be racist”; but come on, the truth is they’re heavily invested in our society’s racist structure; it’s part of their identity, embedded in white socialization, it’s how they interact with the world. And it’s evidenced by the imagery and language they produce and tolerate, and in the agendas they pursue. I think anti-racist progressives need to recognize this reality and stop falling for the old okey-doke when white liberals unilaterally label themselves allies; to the contrary, white liberals who propagate, replicate, defend, mask, normalize, or condone racism are political enemies who simply need to be defeated.
Peace.
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:30 pm -The latest assassination reference; Clinton obliquely suggests that Obama could be assassinated by the end of the primary season. Are these references “friendly hints”?
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:39 pm -I agree with what you are saying, Carmen, and the convincing argument is that George and Dick are not featured in that type of Photoshop. But as uncouth and no-class as the depictions are, I prefer them to some type of code whereby certain expressions or depictions are taboo. We do have the First Amendment although these photoshops might be interpreted as hate speech. The angle that you and Kai emphasize is the idea that certain sources {newprint, Kos diary} ought to be more conscious or more sensitive and that is admirable, but I would tend to go along with Kai, as the reality of the left is often that they just don’t have a lot of consciousness of the race equation from a personal perspective and many of their opinions and expressions {the photoshop} reveal that; as to what the Roswell paper had in mind, I can’t say, but when I first saw that somewhere else I thought about the other Roswell and the strange things that happen there. Let’s see, there’s more than five and a half months left until election day. It’s going to get worse before then.
May 24th, 2008 at 7:38 pm -Prepare yourself.
[...] irresponsible can you be? On what planet is this a part of normal political discourse? Or [...]
May 25th, 2008 at 8:31 pm -why not just call this the “we hate whites” site or the “people of color support the brother for president” site?
I’ve read here occasionally over the last year and the paranoid victimhood and resulting hate speech is really accelerating. Low level emotionalism masquerading as intelligent thought is everywhere.
one other example: If any site had a “proud white voter” emblem, everybody here would be foaming at the mouth over how “racist” that was
May 27th, 2008 at 10:27 am -Jerry C, I am a proud black voter. I have NO problem if you have a Proud White Voter button.
Why does that offend you?
Frankly, I find the tone of your comments pretty rife with emotionalism, but they are welcome.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:59 am -Oh, and regarding paranoia…just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get ya! *winks*
May 27th, 2008 at 11:01 am -So Jerry C plays the moronic reverse racism card and thinks it’s original. Yawn. Racist trollz are boring. Brush that lint off your shoulder, Carmen.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:29 am -Dear Carmen–I’m shocked to see those images. It doesn’t matter who created them or what their intentions were. The images are incendiary, racist and disrespectful. I realize I could also look this up, but do you have email/contact information for the editors or person responsible in both cases? It seems so little in the face of such a grave offense, but at least anyone who sees this should send a letter to each expressing outrage at the choice of images.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:40 pm -Hey Deanna, welcome to the conversation. Right on!!!
From Amani over at http://www.myurbanreport.com - Here is the info for the Roswell Beacon:
Beacon Media Companies, Inc.
515 East Crossville Road
Suite 350-360
Roswell, GA 30075
John Fredericks - Publisher
jfredericks@beaconcast.com
Tim Altork - Senior Editor
taltork@beaconcast.com
Alan Sverdlik - Senior Correspondent
asverdlik@beaconcast.com
To protest that crazy illustration, head on over to http://www.dailykos.com and search for One Citizen.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:29 pm -Jerry C makes his opinion known and Kai calls him ‘moronic’ and a ‘racist troll’.
So goes dialog on race.
June 1st, 2008 at 12:55 am -Carmen D,
You write, ” This is unsettling because I expect violent, angry, white racists to always fantasize about raping, torturing and possessing strong, black women. They will always twist their craving for sexual dominance into some kind of hollow-piped rhetoric trumpeting racial purity and white superiority.”
Where are you getting this? Please cite a credible source such as a psychiatric journal or a study of attitudes of white supremicists. If not, it would seem that your assertions are perhaps just your fantasies. Just because you can think up a horrible thought and articulate it in print does not make it true.
Given that DOJ crime statistics show that white men rarely rape black women (the statistic is not significantly different from zero), if, indeed, these seething racists fantasize about subjugating black women, it would appear they rarely do anything about it.
June 1st, 2008 at 1:01 am -Boy-oh-boy, you post a couple of sleezy covers, comment reasonably on their disgusting and even dangerous implications and the Vanilla Trollz climb out of the woodwork like they came with the covers. Humph. Why am I not surprised? This is an important issue, Carmen. I’m going to post on it, too, at some point shortly and will then link, as well. Not only would you never see a White candidate in crosshairs like this (because they don’t threaten the crazies apparently — an entirely different issue?), but I think covers like these encourage crazies to act. Some of the comments here demonstrate the kind of folks that defend such “illustrations.”
June 1st, 2008 at 10:53 am -Vanilla Trollz; more name-calling. Again, what passes for ‘dialog’.
You would never see anything like this with a white candidate? See “Death of a President”: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0853096/
June 1st, 2008 at 12:01 pm -pteranodon, I let through some name calling on both sides…more than most sites. Maybe more than I should. But, I don’t think so. Given the original version of your comment…you know what I am referring to…I give up. You win.
I still believe your comment on Our Manifesto is inflammatory — “teaching white children to hate themselves??” OK.
Second the movie you referenced and the covers I wrote about are not parallel examples.
June 1st, 2008 at 1:52 pm -Carmen, I was responding to Changeseeker. But, apparently, name-calling towards whites is acceptable on your site, but name calling of blacks is not.
The white oppressor-black oppressed dogma is routinely taught in grade schools around the country now, and its acceptance is required for teachers to be recommended for licencing at many colleges.
June 1st, 2008 at 3:11 pm -Calling anyone of any hue a monkey on my site will NEVER be acceptable. I’m out P.
June 1st, 2008 at 3:36 pm -I was making a comparision; I did not call anyone a monkey. There is a difference between talking about offensive words and using the offensive words.
But my point is still the same one from my post to your “Manifesto” posting; any discussion of race by whites will end in someone declaring that the white speaker/writer is a racist (or a Vanilla Troll, or a Nazi, or a moron, cracker, etc.).
Jes keepin’ it real.
June 1st, 2008 at 4:27 pm -A troll, pteranodon, is a commentator that seeks to create dissention on a blog with which they don’t agree, but insist on haunting. Trolls are not interested in dialogue. They are interested in trying to get a rise out of someone. If you’re not a troll, you shouldn’t be concerned about what I said. If you are a troll, you have no complaints coming for being identified. I used the term Vanilla Troll to identify trolls (see above) that do what they do to push a White Supremacist agenda. Again, if the shoe doesn’t fit, nobody is asking you to put it on. The fact that you immediately began to defend yourself suggests that you are identifying yourself as a troll with a White Supremacist perspective. In which case, this blog must make you very uncomfortable. Just keepin’ it real.
June 4th, 2008 at 3:22 pm -Hi Changeseeker! Good to see you here.
pteranodon, I engage in productive discussions with white folks about racism all the time; as in, every day. People like you think all discussions on race end with whites being called racist because people like you always end up saying racist things; but not all white people are like you, thank god. Changeseeker, for example, is a white scholar who stands against racism. Inversely there are of course persons of color who help prop up white supremacism. So it’s not nearly as simple as you think. If you want to discuss anti-racism, the first thing you need to do is read some anti-racist books and get up to speed on the conversation, which is a complex, multi-disciplinary, high-context discussion. If you just jump in cold as a white person defending white people from scary people of color, then yes you’ll likely come off as a troll, as Changeseeker patiently explained.
Cheers.
June 5th, 2008 at 7:58 am -