HOW TO EXPLAIN THE SERENA WILLIAMS CARTOON CONTROVERSY - WHY THE CARTOON IS RACIST.
I can understand why some - even many - people might find it difficult to see the recent cartoon of Serena Williams, drawn by Mark Knight and published in The Herald Sun, as a racist and highly problematic piece of work. I can understand why some people can only see a cartoon of a person who looks like Serena, chucking a tantrum, which is one way to see what Serena did during the US Open Final. And it makes sense to me why many of those people might have concluded that this is yet another example of leftie-overreach and political correctness gone mad.
Here are the reasons - for those interested - as to why I don't think these things, and that I actually have a real problem with this cartoon.
Everything needs to be examined in context. Context is the ultimate shaper of meaning. It's why I can enjoy particular kinds of humour with some friends that I wouldn't attempt to engage in with strangers. And aside from personal context, sociocultural and historical context matter, too. These are threads of understanding that permeate our society. They never end, are never settled, and this is why we (in a Literature context) refer to them as examples of discourse. They are ongoing idea-based or concept-based discussions, in which we all participate whether we are conscious of doing so or not.
I'm pretty aware of why, if I were to get a Swastika tattoo, that most people might not immediately leap to the conclusion that I'm wearing an ancient, eastern-religious symbol of divinity and spirituality. In a similar sense, the most cursory knowledge of race-based history - not just in America, or Australia, but all over the post-colonial world - is one that reminds us that black people were systematically debased by white people, in order to justify actions that further exploited and dehumanised them. (After all, it's hard to enslave an equal.) But rather than design a symbol of evil, the strategy was to actually turn black people themselves into less-than-human monsters. Their blackness was the symbol. This is why the word 'negro' was corrupted into 'nigger'; to effectively create a sub-species of human being, in order to exploit and enslave them. It's why the Nazis reduced Jews to numbers.
Of course, the counter argument to this is that some people are genuinely of the opinion that black people actually do look more like apes than white people. That might be true - it might not be. (Not all black people look alike, after all.) But just because there might be a resemblance does not give the observer the right to impose a label onto another person at the expense of the dignity of that person. Is it ok for me to label obese people whales or blimps because they resemble them more closely than do skinny people? I'd argue that no, it is not, because it is a basic affront to their dignity. Note how this happens without the added historical baggage of racial profiling. If I think a mate looks like an orangutan because he has red hair and a freckled complexion (g'day, Brian!), there's every chance I'd tell him so. But am I going to say that to every red-haired person I meet? No, I am not. Why? Because it's not respectful. Not being respectful is not ok.
Now, if you magnify that disrespect to a level that draws on an endemic, abusive racial stigma, the level of injury you can impart when these factors in play is considerable. Serena's appearance was being distorted in a debasing manner, along racial lines. If you don't believe me, google an image of donkey-kong. If you can't see the connection, I'm sorry, but at best, you're not looking hard enough, and at worst, you're choosing to look away because doing so is convenient.
Serena Williams is a phenomenal athlete, and a proud and strong black woman. To me, as an athlete, she one of the pinnacles of sporting achievement. I can't for the life of me see why anyone would want to detract from that by likening her to an ape. Historically, the white hegemony (the white power structure) enjoyed magnifying the size and colour of black people, because it served their purpose to do so. The size made them more dangerous - and more in need of being controlled - and more suited to the physical labour (and physical abuse) that came with being enslaved. I can understand why the white world would prefer to see all depictions of black people as innocent representations, but it is the historical actions of white people - and not the present actions of black people - that make this impossible.
The only remaining argument, really, is that the cartoon is a work of satire, and as such, ought not be critiqued in this manner, because satire is all about caricature.
Unfortunately, that's a terribly flimsy excuse that just doesn't cut the mustard. Satire is primarily an act of status-quo subversion - it isn't simply designed to make fun of people. It's designed to offer societal critique, not to simply insult people. And it only tends to work when it is directed at an equal, or someone with more power and status. It's why Trump-Baby works, but creating a giant balloon of an ordinary person would be harassment of the first order. What was the point of this cartoon? What point was it offering? On what precisely was its 'humour' dependent? I'm sorry, but I can't see anything - with regards to these questions - that justifies its existence. This cartoon wasn't challenging the status quo; it was naturalising it. The challenging was being done by Williams, and Knight chose to mock her for it. How pathetic.
So, you might with argue that Serena's success must surely make render it open season when it comes to satirising her, but I'm afraid it doesn't. Serena's success has nothing to do with being black. In fact, being black was more likely an obstacle rather than an advantage. Satirise her wealth by all means, but her physical appearance? You've got to be joking. This is how discourse works; simultaneous threads of meaning, context and implication are in play at all times.
Does this mean Serena can't be criticised? No, it does not. As far as I'm concerned, Serena's actions were not a good look, either for her or the game of tennis. I gather that Serena, whilst she stands by her belief that she was mistreated, thinks the same. Note how easy it was to voice this criticism without distorting her body, her face, or her racial features.
And in truth it doesn't actually matter why Serena was angry. When we focus on the physical depiction of her, there is a problem. But nevertheless, let's set that aside and think about what she was angry about. She felt as though the way in which she was being treated by the chair umpire was adversely influenced by her gender. An examination of the manner in which this particular umpire has differed in how he has responded to comparable conduct from men as opposed to women is telling. There appears to be an issue here. I don't think anyone benefits if Williams bites her tongue when she feels that on some level, she is experiencing discrimination, but even Williams as acknowledged that she wishes she'd handled her response differently, and that she felt for her opponent.
And I must admit, I was forced to wonder how people might have responded to Williams' angry outburst if she'd been playing a multiple grand slam winner, or her sister, Venus. Would the outrage have been comparable? Would the outrage have been the same if it had come from a small, slender white or Asian woman, directed at the umpire, with Williams the opponent watching on? Well, we can only wonder. And if you're like me, it's pretty pathetic to see a black woman caricatured with ape-like overtones by a white male when she's in the act of protesting against sexist treatment at the hands of a white male. Call me old-fashioned, but I'm calling bullshit on that one.
Some actions bring unalterable consequences. I can't see the swastika reverting to an innocent symbol any time soon, and I can't see any drawing of a black person that accentuates animalistic physical features being acceptable anytime soon, either. That is the price we collectively pay for being on the wrong side of the systemic dehumanisation of black people. Frankly, that's a far lighter punishment than white history deserves.
Comments