According to the Ferris State University’s
Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia, “black men have been portrayed
negatively through images in the media and have since struggled to define
themselves contrary to images” such as the brute, uncivilised tribesman, and intellectually
inferior. “These racist images are meant to demean the Black man’s image. Take
the Brute for example: innately savage, destructive, physically strong, hyper-sexual, and criminal”. These were
the pretexts under which black men and women have been kept in slavery and
bondage in places like the Caribbean, the US and South Africa. I highlight the
hyper-sexual part for the reason that it was probably this element of racist caricature
that is most easily identified in The Spear.
The second element of The Spear is the contemporary,
iconic manner in which Jacob Zuma is portrayed. Similar to recent portraits of
revolutionaries like Che Guevara, dramatic contrasts and bold colours paint an
almost heroic picture of the subject. In the case of The Spear, however, this
is “visual sarcasm”, satire. The painting basically says: The ANC sees Zuma as
an iconic revolutionary, but Zuma must be exposed for what he truly is, a brute
in a suit. This is all good and well, but the problem with exposing his phallus
for this purpose is that it feeds into an ancient, colonialist stereotype that
black men have suffered through internationally for centuries. That black men
are amoral brutes that are sexually hyper-active and have no self-control. The
artist may not have intended for the painting to be racist (they say you should never judge the painter, only the painting); in fact, some
even argue that JZ actually coincidentally fits that stereotype. But considering
our own painful past, the fact that the painter is white, and the Goodman
Gallery is owned by white people; good judgment should have won out. Surely
they should have known that the pain caused to millions of black people due to
their racial stereotyping and discrimination would cause them to become
justifiably angry? I think it lacked a bit of cultural sensitivity.
Keeping to this blog’s “racism” theme, black Sudanese
immigrants in Israel are being socially persecuted because they are “stealing
jobs, increasing the crime rate and threatening Zionist nationalism” (the crime rate within the refugee community is actually lower than
that in the general population). I hope with all my heart you are as disgusted
with this as I am. The Knesset, or Israeli parliament, is considering methods
of extraction of these refugees (sounds like ethnic cleansing to me) by
different methods, including deporting them back to their war-torn country. The
refugees themselves call this trip back home “the trip of death” because the
chances of survival through it are slim. Israelis have taken to the streets,
torching apartments (attempted lynching?), beating up refugees and sacking
their shops. And all this in Tel Aviv, supposedly the most tolerant democratic
city in all of the Middle East. Yeah. Sure.
I don’t think it’s an inherently evil thing to categorise
people into races. Our minds are naturally conditioned to categorise. In fact,
we even do it to ourselves, whether culturally, religiously, or socially. The
problem comes in when we bring in a supremacist element to our categories. Once
we start thinking “I am better than you because I am..”, we automatically
switch on that narcissist that stems from our own insecurities. Race
categorisation only becomes racism when there is supremacism involved, and if
this influences the way we treat people, then we are part of the problem.
Supremacism is an ancient evil that we will never completely defeat, but if we
can base our treatment of people as a function of their individuality and not
of their race, we can push it to the fringes of our society, where it
belongs.
No comments:
Post a Comment