Rall: Criminal against art, or innocent victim?!

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

Not a political cartoon per se, but a piece ABOUT political cartoons. Specifically, TED RALL!

"Fuck Liberal Puritans: The Ted Rall Racism Trial."

It's a very one-sided defense of Rall against accusations of his being racist and horrible. And while it might be true that the accusations have themselves been very one-sided, and that there is an element of Puritanism in some liberal discourse (and that "Liberal Puritans" do ultimately undermine the causes they profess to speak for), none of that changes Rall being (in my opinion) just clumsy and terrible. The existence of armchair SJWs doesn't excuse Rall's awfulness. Nor does any of that justify what appears to me to be a heaping dose of privilege from atop which this author condescendingly explains what people are, and are not, allowed to find racist.

Anyway, read it if you're interested in the perspective on Rall from the "liberals aren't leftist enough" crowd.

Comments

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

I've just gotten through the introduction so far,
but wanted to say, thanks! This does look like
a fascinating piece, and Rall has been a topic
of ours of late.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

I haven't read it yet, but I want to comment on the amusement of defending Ted Rall of all people by saying "fuck liberal puritans" -- In defense of a man who could not even let the death of Nelson Mandela pass without being an ass about it.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

It is worth the read. I think I'm about three-quarters through it, and I think the author's point is that when Rall criticizes Mandela, he is doing so on substantive grounds (whether one can agree with him or not), whereas the puritans are just picking an artificial point or two (the drawing of the nose or whatever) to make what is or is not a false substantive claim (that Rall is racist). The meatier argument is that Rall is being picked on and shunned merely for not being a part of the liberal bandwagon and refraining from any criticism of Obama, that is, Rall is not pro-Obama enough, and look at the way he draws that nose - he's a racist! I think it's a good debate.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

I don't think the Rall take on Mandela was substantive because he completely and quite deliberately overlooked Mandela's substantive accomplishments as President of South Africa and made his accounting of his actual achievements look as if they were only ones done for ego gratification.

Nelson Mandela brought universal suffrage to his nation, assumed power from a minority that had brutally oppressed the majority WITHOUT the new majority exacting revenge, forged a path ahead based upon truth and acknowledgement of guilt without retribution, and he stepped down from power unlike almost every other revolutionary leader on the continent, demonstrating that in a democracy, power cannot be permanent.

Rall despicably tosses all of that aside in his critique because to Rall, ideological purity is paramount. So while I think the Kos objections are not well grounded, it is HYSTERICAL that Rall and his supporters are bawing about ideologues.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

As for Mandela, I can imagine Rall arguing that there was enough in the media about Mandela's accomplishments, for the man is an historical figure, after all, and Rall just wanted to make the critical point that Mandela may have been too pro-establishment rather than pro-justice. Now, I am a moderate myself when it comes to thinking about real-world politics, but this does strike me as a substantive point worth making and considering. Rall is just doing a cartoon, not writing a scholarly biography.

As for Rall bawing about ideologues, I think he wishes the debate were more about ideas. Their beef is that this is just a superficial witch hunt - that the man is not a racist. I think the controversy here is not ideology but whether the man is a racist. I don't know Rall, but I'm thinking that it may be outlandish to categorize him as a racist. Though, I think there is some debating to be had on the point. In another thread, I copy-pasted some wiki stuff on him, and I recall that he made some 'racist sounding' criticism of Condoleeza Rice as well. I do wonder whether Rall has a tendency to borrow from old-fashion racism when it comes to criticizing blacks who he deems to be sell-outs or conservatives. There may be an issue there and something for Rall to seriously think about.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Rall can argue that point about Mandela all he wants, but HIS cartoon had Mandela's "to do" list and he INCLUDED accomplished items that were all implying Mandela was just stroking is own ego and left the "big things" unaccomplished. The cartoon deliberately implies the genuinely big things Mandela DID accomplish were nothing to check off a to do list.

Rall IS an ideologue. If his "to do" list of important things included "free nation" and "not become a dictator" then maybe he'd have a moral leg to stand on to state what Mandela ought to have done was not all done. But he didn't. So Rall is suffering due to people who are using similarly rigid standards as his own.

I ain't crying.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

I don't think the Rall take on Mandela was substantive because he completely and quite deliberately overlooked Mandela's substantive accomplishments as President of South Africa and made his accounting of his actual achievements look as if they were only ones done for ego gratification.

&

Rall despicably tosses all of that aside in his critique because to Rall, ideological purity is paramount.

I agree with this completely. That is a typical action of Rall. Instead of everyone else being a liberal puritan, that label applies to himself absolutely. Rall denigrates and dismisses anyone who does not toe the line of what he believes to be liberal, acting as a one-man inquisition in his comics. It is why he has steadily lost liberal support over the years; it is why he continues to be dropped from newspapers and venues; it is why he has stirred the ire of many people. You are either with Rall or you are an Evil Corporate Fascist Conservative who rapes children. There can be no other choices.

Now that I've gotten that rant off my chest...

[kittymink.livejournal.com]

> There were a lot of battles over political correctness back at MRR too. One guy got fired for saying Asian girls had “the Cadillac of vaginas.”

Gotta love punk rock dudebros. /sarcasm

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

The article on this on The Atlantic is nowhere near as interesting as Ted Rall's arguments with others in the comment section:

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/12/racism-and-comics-good-intentions-arent-enough/281966/

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

Wow, that guy is tone-deaf.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Ain't it a wonder, though?

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

I like "criminal against art, but for sucking". Why isn't that one of the options?

I also greatly enjoy his absolute defense of "Intent: It's fucking magic".

[madscience.livejournal.com]

It's not a question of what people are "allowed" to find racist. The idea that Rall is racist because of the way he draws Obama is utterly fucking stupid. Anyone who goes around promoting utterly stupid ideas is going to get called out for it.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

Firstly, the punk-dude-bro doing the "calling out" for "utterly stupid ideas" also seems to think there's no big deal with someone saying that Asian women have "the Cadillac of vaginas." He's welcome to "call out" whatever he wants, but he's hardly the arbiter of what is and isn't an "utterly stupid idea."

Anyway, I find blanket labels like "Rall is a racist" to be counter-productive.

Better to say: "Rall's drawing evokes racist drawings of the past, possibly because of exposure to drawings and stereotypical depictions from the past. His cartoon about Mandela uses racist tropes about the post-colonial struggles of exploited people and ultimately pushes the same racist arguments as that of the bigots." His drawings are problematic regardless of any racist beliefs Rall might, or might not, have. Context is key.

He may not "be" racist, but intent is not magic, and his biggest failings here are a blindness to context and history and an unwillingness to listen to those who say that he might be furthering harmful narratives. His clumsy use of tired tropes makes him much like a bull in a china shop, unable to stop from knocking everything over regardless of his "intent." The two possible responses he could give when people point out the damage he is causing are to either double down and claim that there is nothing breakable in the vicinity, or to choose to look more carefully, note the danger and tread more carefully in the future. Rall has chosen to close his eyes, scream loudly and run randomly through the store flailing his arms.

So much for intent.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

I think he needs to explain why his Obama looks more like a monkey than anything he draws looks like anything.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

Dressing it up in fancy language doesn't make it any less stupid. Rall's drawings are nothing like stereotypical depictions from the past. They do not use racist tropes. They are not "problematic" in any way.

What's actually going on here is that Rall has persistently shined a harsh light on neocon Democrats, and somebody finally had enough and decided to try to silence him by screaming racism. They know that if they scream it loud enough and long enough, it'll become true. Because anyone who criticizes Obama is a racist. No other explanation is allowed.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

Oh please. Show me the similar "OMG they are criticizing Obama they are racist" outcry against Matt Bors, or any other prominent liberal who is holding him to task for drones, the NSA, Guantanamo, or any number of other things.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

They're next.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

What if I just find him kind of a shitty cartoonist and never really paid attention to him before?

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

He's a shitty cartoonist, but he's probably the most vocal Obama critic the left has, in the US at least. Much of what he says makes good points, there's a whole litany of horrendous things Obama is doing that the left seems to ignore.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

By the left, I mean left media, I hear regular folks complaining about the lack of human rights in the Obama government but the media is pretty uninterested, left or right.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

For instance: people like me get very upset about all the spying on Americans, with phones and internet taps and the NSA turning on laptop cameras so they can watch people fap, especially when we can look at it and say that there's not a single credible instance of terrorism prevented by such privacy invasions.

I never wanted the Patriot Act, oppose its renewal every single time it comes up but neither party is interested in honest debate about the validity or Constitutionality of the Act.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Shitty cartoonist and not insightful nor funny. Drumming up a controversy around him is not something he deserves.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

And now a counterpoint:

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Dear Ted,

That's how you do it.

Sincerely,

Everyone

[foolsguinea.livejournal.com]

I for one welcome Ted Rall's contributions to our political conversations, whether I agree with him or not. I'm afraid that they who denounce the far left for even speaking out, and can't even tell the far left from the racist right, are not really helping any leftward movement.