The Onion, those masters of satire, often strike at big targets like the President, Congress and the rich and famous. But what made them sink so low as to call a 9 year old girl a cunt. Well, I'll tell you and you can disagree and call me names if you like, I don't care.
They did it because she is black.
Never in the history of the Oscars, has a black actress so young been nominated for the highest honor in acting land. And never has anyone dared to call a child this or any other vile name. Until now.
Why not Tatum O'Neal, Ellen Page, Abagail Breslin, Linda Blair, Quinn Cummings, Mary Badham, Patty Duke, Jodie Foster, or the many others?
Since Obama was elected President, there is this belief that people can now throw away their political correctness and white guilt and just treat us like everyone else. Because you know, a black President makes up for all that other shit. That's fine, but everyone else was not called a cunt, were they?
I submit to you that it is not some sense of social equality at work but a subversion of the very notion it purports to defy, that this fake colorblindness is the new racism. Now people can say what they really feel about the races, they can air their unbridled contempt and filthy bigotry about how their fellow Americans of African descent deserve nothing but that unbridled contempt.
And these few individuals bring holy hell down on all white people because so many of us are quick to indict everyone when one asshole goes off. Stupid shit like this only confirms in the minds of black people that all white people have unstated hatred for them for no other reason than the color of their skin. We know this is not true, but we do not live in a nation where our media will report the many acts of kindness and civility between the races. All we see is the dirt.
Do we really have so little regard for one another, that we can't even feel protective of an innocent little girl? How would you like to be the one to have to tell her what that word means and why she was called it?
I know this seems like a big reaction, I know it was "just a joke." I was so upset that I said fuck the Onion in every human language. But it's the small things, that determine the path of a society and the way we treat the most vulnerable dictates who we are. Today, we have all fallen down.
And the thing that kills me is The Onion had a right to say it. This is after all, America. But we have a right to turn our backs on them. But I know that we won't. This will blow over by the end of the week and we will be nose-deep up some Kardashian's ass by Monday.
And for all the people who defend The Onion, that's your right, but you only feel that way because your daughter is a cunt.
See how funny that is?
©2013
Thank you.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for this commentary. I am in shock, stunned at the viciousness of this attempt at "satire". She is a child and we must protect our children at all costs, especially from such violent, unwarranted and unproductive attacks.
ReplyDeleteI have to respectfully disagree with your analysis here. We can argue about whether or not the tweet was funny, but clearly, the satirical point was aimed at the vicious cruelty of anonymous internet commentators and irrational celebrity hatred (and the fact that we, as a society, are so cavalier about our cruelty towards others). The joke structure only works BECAUSE Quvenzhané Wallis is the most innocent, sweet target one could imagine, and nobody in their right mind could ever legitimately call her a c***.
ReplyDeleteIf the tweet had said, "Michelle Obama is a c***" that would have been RTed and starred and laughed at by people who legitimately have that feeling toward her. THOSE are the vile racists! Again, the fact that most people missed the intent of the tweet means that as a joke, it fundamentally didn't work. But I'm more concerned that we failed to see our own casual cruelty held up for satire, and instead, have resorted to calling out the satirists as racists. Also, Jonathan Swift didn't really advocate eating babies
Your point is well made and valid, but it essentially fails the litmus test, not for racism, but civility that must be found even in humor, when aimed at children. We operate in degrees with each other, pushing the boundaries of what's acceptable, and what's not. One would think that calling a child a cunt as satire was doomed to failure would be easily recognizable. The summation of this failed humor is eloquently stated in Gary's last two sentences, your daughter's a cunt right? Yeah, funny as hell ... even as satire, right?
DeletePaul, you can't be serious. It is racist to call a 48 year old woman a cunt but not a nine year old? I get what you mean, one has irony, the other doesn't, but a lot of people would tell you they consider the First Lady just as sweet an innocent as that little girl.
DeleteThere is something really bad going on in our country, from the people who make racist comments about the President to many of my people who have damned near deified him. We have lost our perspective and racism is not a litmus test ( a silly and condescending notion BTW) it is a matter of perspective.
DS,
ReplyDeleteI don't believe we should make it a point to callously call anyone vile names, even in the name of humor, but satire IS a different thing. Calling my daughter a cunt wouldn't serve any satirical purpose. The context of the tweet, particularly during the Oscar broadcast, when thousands of anonymous jerks are spewing hateful things about celebrities for no reason, was pretty clearly mocking that ethos.
I think America's particular brand of casual cruelty is an important target of satire. Again, we can argue whether the tweet was funny, and we can also argue whether the point about cruelty is worth juxtaposing a child with the most vile gendered slur in English, but that's an editorial call, and I don't think it's de facto out of bounds.
Gary,
The reason it would be racist to make the comment about the First Lady is because there is a history of racial and gender hatred directed toward her, which makes it very difficult to use her to satirize America's racism and misogyny. The New Yorker cover depicting Mrs. Obama as a militant black radical was intended to be satirical, but it fundamentally misses the mark BECAUSE there are actual people who believe that this depiction truly represents her ideology. In order for that to work, you would have to paint SUCH an extreme picture that nobody could possibly mistake it for a legitimate caricature. But the radical right in this country literally knows no boundaries when it comes to their hatred of the Obama family.
The reason the white child actresses you mention in the post were never satirized in this way is twofold: first, Twitter, and the Onion weren't around to at the time when most of these young actresses were in the spotlight (with the exception of Abigail Breslin, perhaps). And secondly, the casual cruelty (particularly as it pertains to anonymous and semi-anonymous vitriol spewed on social media) is a newer development. If Abigail Breslin was 9 years old today, and was nominated for an Oscar, I have no doubt that the Onion would have made the same joke with her as the subject.
I certainly don't want to diminish the way people feel about gendered and racially charged language. My default position is that when somebody says, "I/we don't want to be called that because it's offensive" I stop calling them that. It's basic politeness. I think people who moan about "The P.C. police" are usually just assholes who are angry that they can't casually use racial slurs anymore, but I do think in this case, when it comes to a publication with a long editorial history of satire directed at powerful targets and institutions, that the intent of the tweet was clearly to hold up a mirror to America's cruelty, and not to attack Ms. Wallis.
I appreciate the civil discussion.
DITTO
Delete