An infinite number of monkies
So by now you probably have already read about the racist cartoon run by the New York Post. The theory being that it compares Obama to a monkey.
It hasent been the first time that the term ‘monkey’ in relation to obama has been interpted as racist. It hasent been the first time that publican named for New York has been acused of racism. It hasent been the first time that cartoons thought to be racist got people pissed off. And for that matter, its not the first time the president has been compared to a chimpanzee.
Now the iniocent explination is the old Infinite monkey theorem chesnut. The point of the cartoon being that the stimulus bill was so bad it might as well have been writen by a monkey. But fore those screaming about racism inherent in the cartoon, this isnt a good enough explination. The theory goes that even if Sean Delonas (the cartoonist who drew it) wasent intending to be racist, he should have been sensitive enough to understand that othersw might take it as racist and theirfore not have drawn it.
On the face of it, I already think this is a backward argument. He wasent thinking about race when he drew it so he is racist. The only way not to be racist is to constantly be thinking about race. But theres something deeper to the notion that people should have enough forsight to stop themselves from doing something that might be considred racist.
Consider the same argument used againt porn. An image may have some other alternitive purpose, but someone else comes along and interpets it as porn then it becomes porn. Elton john owns a fine art print but someone else looks at it and assumes it is porn. Wikipedia shows an album cover but someone else looks at it and assumes it is porn. All echos of much misused “I know it when I see it” quote by supreme court Justice Potter Stewart.
Such events, if not spawning outright ‘Ack! Dear god! We live in a puriticinal police state’ panic atacks, will eventualy lead into the topic of the chilling effect. Someone who isnt involved in child porn might fear being accedently accused of it by some gross misinterpetation, so will theirfore cencor himself. And cencorship in any form, even sell imposed censorship, is evil.
But isnt this exactly what the argument againt the political cartoon is? That the cartoonist should have cencord himself? Why isnt that a chilling efect?
The two seem to be oposites of each other. If somethign is or is not racist is determined by subjective interpetation. Suggesting that there should be a fixed standard that applies equaly in all situations (for example, saying that black stand up commics should get away with using the word nigger when white commics (Michael Richards) are vilified for doing the same thing) will get you labled as clueless to the reality of the situation. If something is or is not porn is determined by a fixed standard that applies to all situations. Suggesting that there shoudl be a subjective opinion (a concerned parent giving a safe sex pamplet to a minor shouldent be iligeal, but a pediophile giving the same pamplet in an effort to ‘turn out’ or ‘groom’ a minor should be iligeal) will also get you labled as clueless to the reality of the situation.