Curious George, Obama, and Race

A bar owner in Atlanta is selling a T-shirt that shows a picture of Curious George peeling a banana, with the words “Obama ’08″ underneath.  The bar owner, known for erecting provocative (some would say, mean-spirited) messages on the marquee outside his bar, has been branded an idiot, a racist, and worse.  His explanation that the T-shirt isn’t intended to be racist has fallen on deaf ears.

So, the case is open and shut.  A redneck from a red state is caught red-handed.  There’s no need for further discussion.  I wonder.

Google “John McCain and Mr. Magoo,” and you’ll find all sorts of ageist comments about McCain, who is ridiculed for being like the old cartoon character.  There’s no T-shirt, but you’ll find pictures of Mr. Magoo along side pictures of Senator McCain.  But this is only a humorous form of age discrimination. 

Google “Hillary Clinton and Cruella De Vil,” and you’ll find their names mentioned in the same sentence.  Hillary has even been compared to the evil queen in Snow White.  But this is only a humorous form of sex discrimination.

And now Obama is being compared to Curious George, the inquisitive monkey from children’s books bearing the same name.  And this isn’t a humorous form of race discrimination. 

It may well be that the Atlanta bar owner is using the Curious George T-shirt for racist purposes.  But this latest introduction of race into the presidential campaign shows how different it is from other issues and further supports a view that I addressed some time ago when I blogged about the Golf Channel/Golfweek racial drama and then the Vogue racial drama.  Golf Channel/Golf Week = big deal.  Vogue = no big deal.  Now Curious George =  big deal. 

I’m back to being confused about what I can and can’t say about race.  And that’s a problem, because I advise employers on race discrimination claims.  Though I continue to believe this election provides a unique opportunity to constructively talk about the issue of race in the workplace, I’m discouraged because I know that such discussions are increasingly unlikely to occur.  It’s easier to avoid talking about something when you don’t know what you can say.

If an employer had asked me what to do about a supervisor who called one of his older employees Mr. Magoo or a supervisor who called one of his female employees Cruella De Vil, I would have had a quick response.  If an employer had asked me what to do about a supervisor who called one of his black employees Curious George, I would have hesitated.  Magoo and Cruella are demeaning caricatures.  Curious George is–or was–a loveable, no-race character I shared with my children over and over again when they were small. 

If an employer calls me now with the Curious George question, I won’t hesitate, of course.  The issue of race in the presidential campaign has transformed Curious George into a symbol of racism after all those years of being a symbol of every little kid’s fun and adventure.  We’re moving backward, not forward, on the race issue.

Age and gender are issues for our society–issues in every workplace.  So is race.  But race is different.  As an issue, it’s almost on a different planet.  Why is that?  Well, it’s just different.  Somehow, that’s not a satisfactory answer, and it doesn’t bode well for the post-race society (whatever that means) we keep hearing about.

1. 

   Phillip Wells says:

   May 16, 2008 at 9:18 am

   All I can say at a time like this, “you ain’t seen nothing yet, election is still along way off.”
2. 

   John Phillips says:

   May 16, 2008 at 9:34 am

   You are probably more correct than any of us can fully appreciate. Thanks for your comment.
3. 

   Nae says:

   May 16, 2008 at 10:16 am

   You missed one thing. Though Magoo and Cruella have negative connotations, they are still depicted as human beings. Curious George is a gorilla. Comparing African-Americans to monkeys and other animals has long been a way to demean them. All of these comparisons are meant to demean, but only one dehumanizes the politician.
4. 

   John Phillips says:

   May 16, 2008 at 10:46 am

   Thanks so much for weighing in. I understand your point–up to a point. Are you saying that comparing an African-American with any animal is dehumanizing? The term “other animals” covers a lot of ground. It’s ok to compare animals with whites, Hispanics, old people, women? This is where I get confused.

   Why did Vogue get a pass when it put Labron James on its front cover with the unmistakable comparison of him to King Kong?

   I’ve never thought of Mr. Magoo and Cruella as human beings. I’ve never thought of Curious George as a gorilla. They’re characters in cartoons or books. I also question your point of view that comparing McCain with Magoo or Hillary with Cruella isn’t dehunamizing as well as demeaning. Why is it just when race is in play that demeaning also becomes dehumanizing?

   George Bush has been compared to Hitler. Though Hitler was a person, I can think of no more dehumanizing comparision.

   Although, despite what I appear to be doing, I’m not trying to be argumentative. I don’t understand why you can compare anyone with anything or any animal or any person and get away with it, unless “anyone” is black. The former comparisons will attract some heat, some disdain, even some name-calling. The latter comparison will get you branded a racist, even if the comparator is a popular character from a chldren’s book.
5. 

   John Phillips says:

   May 18, 2008 at 11:43 am

   Wow. Did I really submit 4? Well, thanks for publishing one of them. And I’m not related to Nick.

   Maybe if I keep submitting articles, I’ll become one of the bloggers you know and love. Then again, maybe not.

   As to sitting on the fence, that explains why my bottom has been so sore since I began blogging.
6. 

   John Phillips says:

   May 18, 2008 at 12:44 pm

   Thanks for mentioning this post. This issue will become much more contentious as the campaign moves forward. I hope some constructive discussion will come out of the contention. We’ll see.
7. 

   Douglas Ragan says:

   May 18, 2008 at 1:46 pm

   John. Thanks for the continued intelligent submissions to the blog carnival.
   I’m sure it won’t catch fire.
8. 

   John Phillips says:

   May 18, 2008 at 2:18 pm

   Thanks for kind comment. In a figurative way, I think you carnival has already caught fire. A good thing.
9. 

   Megan says:

   May 18, 2008 at 7:37 pm

   I just looked you up because you posted a comment after an article of mine in the Billerica Minuteman. I never knew Curious George was such a controversial figure. I was merely comparing him to my son who is very …curious.
10. 

    John Phillips says:

    May 19, 2008 at 8:40 am

    Megan, I also didn’t realize that Curious George was a controversial figure. If the bar owner was using GC for race-baiting purposes, then I can understand how some took offense at what he did. I’m still uncomfortable with any issue being so divisive that it can convert a loveable children’s book character into a racist symbol. Thus, I hope that we can continue a substantive conversation about race, although it is obviously difficult to do. Thanks for the comment.
11. 

    Shawna says:

    May 19, 2008 at 4:57 pm

    Inappropriate? Offensive? Poor Taste? Maybe, though no different than the other comparisons mentioned above, and I would like to point out that it is dramatically different than the rap music lyrics that many women find offensive. Women have learned not to listen, not to look, not to take it personally, not to cause a riot. We women handle it with grace and dignity, so please – be “reasonable people”.

    It would be a sad day indeed if Curious George was thought of as a sign for racism. Good grief (no offense Charlie Brown)
12. 

    John Phillips says:

    May 19, 2008 at 5:24 pm

    Shawna, I hadn’t thought of any of the comparisons you mentioned. They’re all good and thought-provoking.

    Being reasonable is getting harder and harder it seems. I’m getting ready to post something on the gender issue in the presidential campaign (and try to relate it to the workplace). What you said reminded me of that because I do think women are able to handle difficult situations with grace and dignity more than men are. I know that’s a gross generalization, but some gross generalizations are true. I don’t think we’ll get to see how a woman would use grace and dignity to handle the office of president this time, but I think when it finally happens, it’ll be a very pleasant–perhaps shocking– change of pace.

    Well, I guess I’m rambling. Sorry. It’s been a long day.

    Loved the way you transitioned from Curious George to Charlie Brown.

    Thanks from weighing in.
13. 

    Rebecca Mazin says:

    May 23, 2008 at 12:16 pm

    Comments combined with the email jokes and cartoons about candidates can create a significant issue for employers. I had a participant in a seminar ask if political affiliation is a protected class. It is in some locations. Check out my posts on http://www.allbusiness.com, “How to Handle Political Discussions in the Workplace” and “Ready Any Good Jokes About the 2008 Presidential Candidates?” A constructive dialog or conversation about race and gender is very different than offensive content.
14. 

    John Phillips says:

    May 23, 2008 at 1:17 pm

    Rebecca, thanks very much for your comment. Your posts on the subject of political discussions at work are excellent. The example you gave in one of your posts about the boss always talking about Nader or any candidate could actually violate a statute in Tennesseee designed to protect employees from pressure to vote one way or another.

    Although this is a sensitive area, I continue to believe that this election gives employers a unique chance to engage their employees in a meaningful discussion about issues that continue to plague most workplaces–gender, race, age. Such a discussion has to be done in a respectful way, and I’ll concede it can be somewhat dangerous. So, a lot of planning would need to be done. If we could have meaningful, respectful discussions about these issues, then some of the inappropriate comments would hopefully go away.

    I realize there are some workplaces where this kind of discussion couldn’t possibly be held. Those are the workplaces that keep employment lawyers in business.

    Thanks again for weighing in.
15. 

    Jennifer says:

    May 28, 2008 at 7:54 am

    You mean to tell me that you advise employers on race discrimination claims and you don’t know the connotations of depicting a black man as a monkey? Wow. This explains a LOT about race relations in the U.S., especially with people like you at the helm. Let me guess: all of your conversations include the words “sensitive” and “race card” in them, don’t they?

    GRAH!!!
16. 

    John Phillips says:

    May 28, 2008 at 10:10 am

    Thanks for weighing in, Jennifer. And thanks for being blunt. I like that. Though you’ve quickly established with your piercing questions that I’m an idiot, I’ll do my best to answer them.

    I’m sure I use the word “sensitive” and the term “race card.” I try to avoid using them all that much, because they’re largely overused (which I guess is your point). If you’ll forgive me for using the term, it’s been interesting to see the “race card” played in the presidential campaign by whites and blacks. Maybe we’re not so far apart after all.

    I’m not at the helm of anything, so no need to worry about that. I have been advising employers on race discrimination for over 30 years and doing it well, in my humble opinion. You’ll have to read more than this one post to get a feel for what I’ve advised. I’ve done a lot of posts on race since starting this blog. I invite you to read them all.

    Of course, I know the connotations of depicting a black man as a monkey, just like I know the connotatons of depicting a woman as an evil female cartoon character and an old man as a bumbling cartoon character. The latter two are apparently ok. The former isn’t. The fact that you didn’t address the latter two depictions makes me think that you agree. All three are potentially evidence of unlawful discrimination.

    Now to put some names with the depictions. Do I readily see bad connotations of comparing Obama with Curious George? No. Until the recent Curious George t-shirt controversy, I’m not sure I ever thought of CG as a monkey. I certainly never thought of him as an African-American. CG taught my kids a lot of lessons, and I have fond memories of reading CG to them, free of sensitivity or the race card.

    I have always thought of Cruella as an unloveable bitch and Magoo as a baffoon, though a somewhat loveable one. Both are readily demeaning to women and old people. Curious George isn’t readily demeaning to blacks. In fact, if you insist on looking at CG as a black, then he depicts blacks in a very favorable light.

    Sorry I don’t have all this figured out like you do. I’m probably too old.
17. 

    John Phillips says:

    June 3, 2008 at 9:56 am

    Thanks for including. Very diverse carnival.