Altcinema Contact Bio Academics Films Blog Home

Thursday, February 19, 2009

When a Chimpanzee Is Not Just a Chimpanzee

Protests and outrage abound today in response to the New York Post’s publication of Sean Delonas’ cartoon featuring two policemen shooting a chimpanzee.

In response, New York Post editor-in-chief Col Allan denied the cartoon was racially charged and suggests that critiques of the piece are outlandish by associating protests with the “publicity opportunist,” Al Sharpton:
The cartoon is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut. It broadly mocks Washington’s efforts to revive the economy. Again, Al Sharpton reveals himself as nothing more than a publicity opportunist.
Allan’s defense of the cartoon, however, is specious at best, instead mostly reflecting the same racism and ignorance as Delonas’ drawing. By invoking Al Sharpton, the radical and presumably non-credible African-American civil rights figure, as the face of protestations against the cartoon, Allan rather blatantly suggests that anyone who thinks a chimpanzee is more than a chimpanzee is a lunatic.

But, in reality, Delonas’ cartoon represents at least two iconic, racially charged scenes:
* the depiction of African-Americans as ape-like, and
* images of white policemen beating/shooting/lynching African-American men


A Short History of the Representation of African-American’s as Apes

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, cartoons and other imagery depicting African-Americans (as well as Irish and Italian immigrants) with ape-like characteristics became commonplace.

The root of the emergence of these images seems to be a direct response (and refiguring of a dominant, racist paradigm) to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution in On the Origin of Species (1859) and other scientific theories of monogenism (the idea that races—balck, white, and others— have a common, rather than distinct, ancestral origins are thus part of the same race).

The image to the right lampoons, and thus reflects, popular white racial anxieties about apes as ancestors to human beings by joking that the ape would be embarrassed to have Darwin for a descendant.

Challenged by strong scientific evidence to the contrary, racist ideologies that presumed the superiority of whites over blacks and other on the basis of a literal differentiation of races (i.e., that blacks were not actually a part of the human race) gave way to new, evolutionary-friendly paradigms that place whites at the top rung of an evolutionary ladder.

As the cartoon to the right depicts, this new paradigm envisions white, heterosexual men as the pinnacle, exemplary figure of the human, with women, homosexuals, and other races such as blacks and the Irish positioned as less developed and thus closer to the ape origins of the species. In the early 1900s in particular, alongside the development of the theory of eugenics by Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, such images of African-Americans with ape-like features were common.


Allan, the Post editor, seems to suggest that in 2009 a chimpanzee is just a chimpanzee and that, even if there is a legacy of representing African-Americans as monkeys, he and Delonas were unaware of it and shouldn’t be held responsible for it.

I believe, however, that such arguments are disingenuous if not outright lies. This racist imagery is an indelible part of our cultural consciousness and historical legacy. It doesn’t matter whether or not Delonas was directly thinking about the history of the representation of African-Americans as apes when he drew the cartoon. We as viewers and citizens can only see his drawing in this cultural context.

And, given that we have a newly elected black president who was the leading proponent of the stimulus bill, reading Delonas’ cartoon as a racist depiction of the violent slaughter Barack Obama is anything but outlandish.

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Giving a Kid the Candy Store: Obama Promises Stricter Executive Compensation Rules

In an effort to muster public support for more Wall Street giveaways... uh, bailouts... Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner today announced regulations on executive compensation for all banks that will receive federal funds under TARP II. However, the rules specifically exempt restricted stock from the limits.

While this cap may bring down some of the exorbitant salaries in a way, the fact is that most executive compensation isn't made through salary alone. Rather, restricted stock is already precisely the way most companies transfer wealth to executives.

More...
To give an example, let's say bank executive X's current compensation package includes a $1 million salary, bonuses that are typically in the range of $2 - $10 million, and restricted stock (X already owns 500,000 shares). This year, however X's bank takes on capital from the government under TARP II. So, X faces a salary cut of 50%, plus he can't take a bonus this year because of public outrage (not because he ran the bank into insolvency). But there are no restrictions on how much restricted stock he can receive.

Essentially this means that Obama is forcing the bank execs to defer their compensation for a short or intermediate time frame. Bank board of directors will authorize outrageous sums of restricted stock to make up for the loss in other forms of compensation.

And since Obama is thus far refusing to even consider nationalizing the banks, Obama is effectively telling the bank execs... wink, wink... that he is going to preserve the banks' stocks (and thus executive and shareholder stakes in the company) by not insisting on any reasonable terms in exchange for government funds.

Obama is saying: don't take big salaries. Take down huge chunks of stock at these low prices, and, if you play ball, I will make sure your bank still exists in 2, 5, 10 years and you will make fortunes.

It's like cutting the allowance of a kid for a year because he behaved badly, but giving him enough candy to tide him over for that period and promising that, at the end, he will own the candy story.

Will Wall Street Fatcats Continue to Get a Pass?

US Attorney General Eric Holder was sworn in yesterday.

He used the occasion to make no promises there will be any prosecutions of bankers on Wall Street for their reckless and greedy actions that have brought the financial system into insolvency:
"We're not going to go on any witch hunts, but to the extent that what this nation is facing is the result of fraud and misconduct, we'll find it and we'll hold people accountable."
I'm so relieved that it is no longer "business as usual" in Washington.

Monday, February 2, 2009

The State of California Is Insolvent: Payments for Disability and Mental Health Services Postponed

You wouldn't know it from the headlines in California newspapers today, which seem to be most focused on the Superbowl, but California is insolvent, still has not passed a budget to deal with a project $42 billion gap, and has stopped making payments for grants to some of the state's most neediest.

The state legislature again missed their deadline of passing the 2009 budget. This actually happens more years than not due to much stricter requirements for passage than most other states (the passage of the annual budget in California mandates 2/3 approval vote). This means that, even when the state legislature has a strong Democratic majority, Republicans can easily block Democratic budgets, making bipartisanship a necessity that is very difficult to obtain. In good economic times, this process is a nuisance. In poor economic times, and this is definitely the worst period post-WWII, it is a catastrophe.

More...
Consequences of the Ongoing Lack of a 2009 State Budget

Since the legislature failed to pass a budget on Friday, January 31, California State Controller John Chiang has been forced to stop payments for a wide away of debts and services as of yesterday, February 1, including:
* Cal Grants

* Personal income, bank, and corporation tax refunds

* Department of Social Services/CalWorks (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families - aka TANF - for basic needs, which includes specific Welfare-to-Work requirements and provides supportive services such as childcare)

* Operating costs and salaries of county staff who administer public assistance programs

* and the departments of Developmental Services (for people with disabilities), Mental Health, and Alcohol and Drug Abuse.
In addition, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger went to court (over Chiang's objections) so that he could demand that over 230,000 workers be furloughed for two days each month, which will amount to a pay cut of 9% and means many government facilities like the DMV will also be closed every other Friday, beginning this week (and could continue into 2010).

Chiang also stated that the deferred payments for February (and those going forward) will continue to be delayed each month until the budget is passed.


How the Will the Gap Get Filled?

The state estimates that, if passed in its current form, the federal stimulus package would bring in about $19 billion for the state. However, this doesn't even cover half of the expected $42 billion deficit.

The major problems of the state budget crisis are twofold: 1) the legislature is limited to being able to make cuts to only parts of the general fund (which itself comprises only slightly more than half of the total budget), and 2) the state budget must be balanced every year, i.e. the state is not allowed to run at a deficit the way the federal budget does (and this is largely true of all the states).

With a Republican governor and a solid Republican minority in the legislature, the Republicans are able to block the passage of the budget for as long as the Democrats refuse to make extensive cuts to programs such as social services (which, as the Controller's website emphasizes, are at the bottom of the list funding priorities for the state). And cuts are necessary because tax hikes to raise money to close the budget gap are both easily squashed by the Republicans and politically unpalatable given the state of the economy, even though slashing spending is exactly the wrong thing to do in the midst of a severe recession/depression.

So, the California government remains at a standstill, with Republicans seeking ruthless cuts and Democrats trying somewhat to protect the interests of their base. And the federal government is largely ignoring the problems at the state level across the nation, instead working on a plan to give away trillions to the banks as crucial state and local jobs and services disappear.

Thus the budget crisis is going to go on for a long time, with the sick, poor, disabled, students, and uninsured paying the highest price.