So…

I’m reading about this whole Lieberman-in-blackface graphic thing (image here; race baiting flyer, to which it was ostensibly a response, explained here), and, honestly, I don’t get it. I mean, I get why it caused a controversy, but I don’t understand what message the image was trying to convey in the first place. How does presenting Lieberman in blackface communicate that he’s trying to disingenuously shore up his credentials with black voters? The symbolism of blackface isn’t “playing black.” Its history is of supremacy, of demeaning blacks through mockery, not an attempt to endear oneself to black people, even if cynically, which is what Lieberman was clearly trying to do. (And, let’s face it, he’s not the first candidate to do that; not even the first Democrat, not by a long shot.) Using blackface imagery to make this point is certainly confusing to those who understand its history.

Steve:

When I see an old (or not-so-old) photo of a white man in blackface, I read the white person behind the burnt cork as the one wielding power over the race he's embodying. Is that how we're supposed to read Lieberman? We're Democrats/blacks and he's the white man/Republican pretending to be one of us so he can mock us? In that case, then what's Clinton's role as the white man not in blackface with an arm around Joe's shoulder? Does he represent the true face of the GOP? Hunh?

Or are we supposed to read "black Joe" as really black -- a foolishly loyal slave/servant? If so, again, what is Clinton? His massa? Again, hunh? And would massa be so familiar with the colored help?

…It was an image that posed a real risk to Ned Lamont, and to all of us as Internet liberals, and did it even make sense?

Not to me, anyway. I’m trying to think of a parallel scenario, and there really isn’t one that has the incendiary history of blackface, but the closest I can come is when I write a post about Bush’s pandering toward women, when his policies are not exactly feminist, to say the least. If I use an image to make the point, I post a picture of some flag-bedecked bag at the Republican National Convention holding up a “W is for Women” sign—irony—I don’t Photoshop an image of Bush to appear in drag. Baiting and pandering, which is what Lieberman was doing, is a cynical ploy to align oneself with a particular demographic’s needs and issues. That’s the opposite of what blackface conveys, which is the deliberate marginalization of blacks.

Anyway, the whole reason I’m making the point about the misuse of the imagery is to get to this: It’s actually quite tough to use ironically and is thusly easily misused—so how about not using it at all.