Teaching Tool: The Advantages and Limitations of a Race-Themed Political Cartoon

Humor can be an effective vehicle for delivering a serious message. Whether it is in the form of satire, parody or simple ridicule, the most powerful statements are sometimes delivered in a way that makes us laugh before we think.

On the RaceProject Facebook page THIS WEEK, we reposted (from a tweet from SocProf) a link to a book review that contains a political cartoon by Barry Deutsch titled "A Concise History of Black-White Relations in the United States." It is a simple, six-panel strip that conveys a clear, accurate message of contemporary misunderstandings about White privilege and progressive strategies for achieving racial justice. But, as we note in this space every week, these issues are never as simple as they seem. We offer a "concise" analysis of the advantages and limitations of using this cartoon in the classroom to help students understand the complex history of Black-White relations in the United States.


Advantages

The primary advantage of using humor is that it can be disarming. More and more teachers are using clips from Saturday Night Live, The Daily Show or The Colbert Report to stimulate conversation about current events. Students like to laugh, and they appreciate when teachers deviate from the course readings. So the first advantage is that a comic strip can get students to pay attention and to be engaged.

Substantively, there are several advantages, as well. The strip is an accurate overview of American history in this regard: Slavery was a way for Whites to gain advantage disproportionate to what they could have without it (panes 1 through 3), African Americans fought hard for legal emancipation and won it (pane 4), Whites feel guilty about slavery and the history of oppression and are (genuinely) sorry about it (pane 5), and many Whites are reluctant to support any effort to rectify those past wrongs that involves violation of the meritocracy principle (pane 6).

The final pane actually contains two narratives. The first centers on the refusal to embrace approaches that involve a perceived disadvantage to Whites, but the smaller image and print in the lower right-hand corner of the pane invokes the idea that Whites' view these issues as being individualistic rather than systemic. The White character says "[I]f I got up here myself, why can't you?," even though it was only a few panes ago (seconds in the time that it takes someone to read the strip) that he 1) clearly does not get up there himself (panes 1 through 4) and 2) acknowledges as much with his apology (pane 5). This friction between fact and myth is an advantage in the classroom because it forces students to confront the reasons behind the character's social amnesia and the degree to which it accurately reflects the reality of Black-White relations in the United States today.

Limitations

For all its benefits, Deutsch would likely admit that there are dangers to this. After all, part of the reason that the humor works is that it is patently silly to believe that such a simple story can accurately capture the nuance of 400 years of history. By titling the strip "A Concise History. . ." the artist is giving us a wink, acknowledging that while there is nothing substantively astray here overall, it is a deliberate, recognized oversimplification.

That oversimplification will be recognized by sophisticated, thoughtful readers, but it may be lost on folks who do not have a strong knowledge base with respect to the complexities of race relations in America. If one believes, for instance, that "racism" ended with the signing of the landmark civil rights legislation in the 1960s, that Brown v. the Board of Education integrated public schools in the U.S., and that affirmative action means quotas, this cartoon is unlikely to be an effective tool to combat those inaccuracies.

The "problem" is not solvable because the core of the limitation is also central to the strip's advantages. That is, by allowing individual characters to stand in for power systems, the artist is able to simply and effectively capture the reality of race relations while he intentionally fundamentally misrepresents the problem in a way that is likely to perpetuate it.

As is indicated in the final exchange in pane 6, Deutsch clearly understands that Whites' insistence on personalization is foolish because it decontextualizes the issue. The White character is the foil because he either refuses to or is unable to recognize that he has benefited from racism and continues to do so by opposing an action that would help to make things more fair (helping the Black man whom he used to gain his advantage). Because the strip accelerates history, the same characters appear in all six panes to reflect a time period, which, in reality, spans generations. White students will likely (and appropriately) note that while they may be the White character in the final pane, their situation is different because unlike the character, they were not present in the first four panes (the familiar "I never owned a slave" defense). They might argue that they arrived in the fifth pane, in fact, which shows that their entire lives have been spent feeling guilty about and "apologizing" for America's racist history.

The truth, of course, is that Whites who are living today have very much been present in those first few panes in some ways. While there has not been formal slavery of African Americans (of the kind depicted by the ball and chain) in our lifetime, Whites as a group are provided a "lift up" on the backs of persons of color. But that lift is not visible, it is not universally true on an individual basis, it is certainly not literal, and most Whites do not feel as if such a statement is accurate at all. Indeed, it takes a lot of reading, thinking and guidance for most Whites to understand the power and pervasiveness of the relatively invisible concept of White privilege. It is likely impossible for that story to be understood through a "concise" narrative of any kind.

The Black character in the strip is sympathetic; the White character is not. In the meta-narrative of race relations, this is probably fair, but at the individual level, it certainly is not. Individual White people have not, on the whole, acted in ways that are detrimental to Blacks. They do not consciously refuse to accept responsibility for their privilege and, it should be noted, are not directly responsible for that privilege the way that the White character in the strip is. In short, while the White character in the strip was aware of what he was doing when he took advantage of privilege and then adds insult to injury by not rectifying the situation once he realized it was inappropriate, the lived experiences of White individuals in America today cannot be captured by that dynamic.

There is a great deal of defensiveness on the part of Whites to any suggestion to the contrary, and this strip may evoke those feelings in Whites who encounter it. As those who are involved in the struggle for social justice know all too well, cutting through folks' defenses is a fundamental step toward consciousness raising.

The Verdict

We think that the advantages of this strip outweigh the limitations for college-age students (adults), which is the population with which we work. Because it can stimulate discussion and help to generate the type of analysis that we briefly offer here, we think it is a good way to explore some of the underlying constructs that hide below the surface of our contemporary political discourse on race.

On the other hand, we would be concerned about this strip being included in learning materials without the benefit critical discussion led by someone who has a sophisticated understanding of these issues. Under those circumstances, there is danger of misunderstanding the artist's intent and of a perpetuation of myths about the centrality of individualism in race relations in America.

As always, we look forward to your thoughts. What is the overall usefulness of a cartoon like this to help students to understand concepts such as White privilege, systemic power and hegemony? We especially want to hear from elementary school teachers and secondary education teachers: Is this appropriate for your classes? What advantages and limitations are these contexts?

RNC Recap for Thursday, September 4

This past Monday, we provided a preview of the themes we expected to see this week during the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, MN. Here is a recap of Thursday’s events.

The theme for the night was “Peace: A Safer and More Secure America,” and the discourse was raised to a more sophisticated and positive level from that of Wednesday night. While there were a few references to Obama being “not like us” (U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham said “I’m not saying Barack Obama doesn’t care; he doesn’t get it”; McCain suggested that Obama believes he is anointed by God to save the country), Theme 1 from Monday was generally not reflected, for the most part, in the language from the last night’s speakers. Overall, there were few messages that would be more successful because of racist predispositions. Theme 3 (McCain is conservative) was similarly minimal on Thursday night, though McCain had a number of lines such as “. . . the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan is going to get back to basics.” While there were some other mentions of Ronald Reagan, low taxes and keeping government out of people’s lives, these messages gave way to stronger themes of change and reform. Theme 4 (Republicans are inclusive) more closely resembled that of Tuesday night than Wednesday night, with nearly all of the speakers being white and male (notable exceptions were U.S. Senator Mel Martinez and Cindy McCain), and the few people of color in the audience getting predictable camera time.

Theme 2: McCain and Palin are Change
The most prominent theme from those that we predicted on Monday was Theme 2. In the film designed to introduce Governor Sarah Palin (which was supposed to air last night, but was bumped due to time constraints), the word “maverick” was mentioned three times in the first 15 seconds and was used at least three more times in the brief clip.



In short, it was a very strong final night to a strong convention. McCain did exactly what he needed to do: he placated the Evangelical right with his choice of VP, but maintained his ability to appear to be “independent” with the messages that came out of the convention hall. In particular, McCain’s “ask not what your country can do for you” speech Thursday night will clearly resonate with a large number of Americans. In contrast to the fear mongering that took place earlier in the convention (there was a particularly offensive graphic film about 9/11 victims shown earlier in the evening) and the vitriol that was so much a part of most of the convention’s speakers, McCain’s call for civility, bipartisanship, and putting country above self was a breath of fresh air. After an unfortunate start due to Hurricane Gustav, the GOP put on an energetic and moving event that will clearly result in a solid bounce in support in the coming days.

Walking the High Wire
McCain and Palin are going to have a difficult time maintaining the momentum that they built this week, though. It will be tough to continue to walk the very thin line between change and appeasing the conservative base of the Party. Particularly in Thursday night’s speech, McCain did an admirable job of simultaneously running against Obama and the Bush Administration. But that was a scripted speech in front of a supportive crowd; he will have difficulty keeping aloft on the high wire when things are being thrown at him from multiple sides. Here are a few examples:

• During the Palin film, the narrator noted that “she managed to increase funding for infrastructure by cutting property taxes” when she was mayor of Wasilla. How did she manage that? Early reports suggest that she hired a lobbying firm and received nearly $27 million worth of federal earmarks, something that McCain has vowed to eliminate if elected president. Conservatives will like that she didn’t raise property taxes, but will be upset to learn that she was part of the spending that they find so “wasteful” coming out of Washington.
• McCain used an example of a Michigan couple who lost their real estate investments in the housing crash, saying that he’d “fight” for them. That will be appealing to the populist wing of the party, but fiscal conservatives will be more likely to side with the statements McCain made in March: “it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers."
• Sarah Palin said that she’d advocate for children with special needs, but what did she mean? Parents of special needs children need a lot of help, not the least of which is financial. While it is compassionate to “advocate” for children with special needs, she will have to explain to the far right how this type of governmental spending is warranted, while others is not, or she’ll have to explain to these families why securing funding for treatment and education for these kids is not what she meant by “advocate.”
• McCain mentioned that the daughter of a Latina worker is one of “God’s children” who deserves to be fought for. If the worker is undocumented, he’s right that the child is “American,” but many on the far right would like that child to be sent out of the country. Will he fight for that child or deport him or her?
• McCain promised to provide assistance to the unemployed worker (through Community College training), but was not clear if he was going to spend federal money to make the transition. The working class supporters will favor such a program, but if it costs money, McCain will run into problems with others in the Party.

And there were some questions that remain unanswered. Specifically, who is the “me-first, country-second crowd” to which McCain referred in his speech Thursday night? The handful of politicians who have been caught in scandals are obvious and common enemies of the people, but beyond that, is he referring to Democrats? It was a common call of previous speakers that “liberals” in Washington “want your money for themselves.” But those who favor government spending on social issues (or foreign policy, for that matter) don’t get to keep that money for themselves. Who is in this “crowd?” The call all week was for “country first,” but who were they suggesting puts themselves ahead of country? There was some implication that Obama is out for himself (a political opportunist), but the vague attack on an ambiguous target is parallel to the attacks against “the media.” During the debates, there should be some push to be specific about what is meant by such claims.




Racial Equality Through Education
Our concern, of course, is the move toward racial equality. There is very little that came out of this convention that suggests that McCain/Palin will be committed to bringing about more racial equality in America. After noting Obama’s historic nomination, McCain made a general reference to “defending the rights of the oppressed” and making sure that all Americans have opportunities. But we were quite impressed that he said that “education is the civil rights issue of this century.” There is more to racial inequality than education, but for the most part, McCain is exactly correct. The problem, though, is that his plan to fix the education system is pointed in the wrong direction.

Educational opportunities are unequal in America largely due to the way schools are funded. While some federal and state money is given to schools by way of grants, much (usually most) funding of schools is reliant on property taxes in the district. So if a neighborhood is wealthy, the schools are wealthy; if it is poor, the schools are poor. Poor districts are understaffed, do not have materials and resources necessary to educate in the 21st century, and do not attract the most talented teachers. Further, poor districts are likely to have students whose parents have to work long hours and consequently may not be home to help with schoolwork. After-school programs are not possible because of funding issues. McCain promised Thursday night to “shake up failed school bureaucracy,” a vague phrase that directs attention away from the real problem. Bureaucracy does not create discrepancies in school funding, economic inequality (which is closely tied to racial inequality) does. McCain promises to make schools compete with one another and then allow parents to have the “choice” to move their students to a better school. But what does this really mean?

Without equality in funding, the “competition” is not fair. Particularly since No Child Left Behind financially punishes schools whose students do not meet standardized benchmarks, the “competition” is not likely to become fairer without a major change in funding structure. But that change will not happen if the far right continues to dictate policy. McCain promised folks that they should be able to keep the fruits of their hard labor. That is precisely what does not need to happen.

To make schools more equal, wealthy people will have to give money to poor schools through taxes and redistribution of finances. So long as wealthy (mostly white) folks move to the suburbs and keep their wealth in their own schools, leaving poorer families behind (or, as Obama said last Thursday, “on their own”), there will be inequality in schools. A voucher that gives a family a $4,000 credit to put toward tuition at a private school will help families that are $4,000 short for private school tuition of, say, $12,000 per year, but for those who can’t get the remaining $8,000, that’s simply an additional $4,000 that will not be in the pool for the local public school.

Further, while it is popular in conservative circles to run against unions, his promise to take education out of the hands of “bureaucrats and unions” and give it to parents and children is wrongheaded. Letting students decide what should happen in schools is like having physicians permit patients to make their own medical diagnoses. Until teachers are treated like professionals and not merely government employees (i.e., better pay, greater respect and autonomy), great leaps in education will not be possible. In short, without a major redistribution of wealth for school funding, McCain’s vision of civil rights being achieved through education will not be realized.

McCain spoke of the sort of selflessness that wealthy persons like to applaud, but only occasionally advocate in practice. The truth is that there is economic inequality in this country, and those who have wealth do not usually support policies to help those who do not. So while it is probably soothing for wealthy folks to cheer calls to serve a cause greater than oneself and put service first, the policies that are advocated by the Republican Party in 2008 are not a change from those of the past forty years. Tax-deductible contributions to get one’s family into a lower bracket are welcome, but they are no substitute for the greater good that can come from working together as a national community to solve our great problems of homelessness, hunger, poverty, and inequality. The market cannot solve those problems, and when the confetti clears in St. Paul, it will be obvious that the real empty rhetoric is not coming from Obama, whose policies are designed to address inequality, but from the GOP, whose presidential candidate we believe is personally committed to making the world a fairer, better place for all (at least Americans), but whose power is still centered in the far right, which have already pulled the “maverick” from his comfort zone and into a policy world with nothing but continued and increased inequality on the horizon.