Vanity Fair
JAMES WOLCOTT'S BLOG
3 O'Clock Rock
(March 11, 2008, 6:39 PM)
Now that everybody's a media expert, savvy to the gleaming fingertips of perception, pundits and professors alike have become deep-sea subtextualists when it comes to decoding political spots. Give them a few frames of Fassbinder to study and they'll come up dry, but stick a YouTube parody or Web ad in front of them and suddenly they can peel through ten layers of emulsion thick with socio-cultural-ethnic-semiotic significance. On today's op-ed page of the Times, Orlando Patterson hit the high-dive board over Hillary Clinton's "3 AM phone call" ad* and met the ghost of D. W. Griffith on the way down:
""I have spent my life studying the pictures and symbols of racism and slavery, and when I saw the Clinton ad?s central image--innocent sleeping children and a mother in the middle of the night at risk of mortal danger--it brought to my mind scenes from the past. I couldn't help but think of D. W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation," the racist movie epic that helped revive the Ku Klux Klan, with its portrayal of black men lurking in the bushes around white society. The danger implicit in the phone ad--as I see it--is that the person answering the phone might be a black man, someone who could not be trusted to protect us from this threat.""
Man, is that ever a stretch, and the Daily Howler's Bob Somerby is scathing on the troubled thoughts that Patterson can't help but think even if those thoughts are hobgoblins of his own imagination:
"..The uneasy professor "ha(s) spent (his) life studying the pictures and symbols of racism and slavery." Another person might have put that sort of work to good use, but Patterson is left with "scenes from the past" that come to his mind?with things he "couldn?t help but think." Of course, fools that we are, we all have things we?re inclined to think?reactions we're inclined to have, thoughts that instantly pop into consciousness. But to the extent that we have trained our minds, we then subject such reactions to analysis. Sorry, but Patterson doesn't go there much. Later on, he again reports the things he "could not help but think." Soon, he's throwing the r-word around quite a bit, based on things he "could not help but think."
-snip-
Patterson offers interpretations of this ad that are, simply speaking, inane. For that reason, it's sad to see him boo-hoo-hooing about the way some people "may" or "could" be "trading on the darkened memories of a twisted past Obama has struggled to transcend." Part of our history with which Obama has struggled (quite brilliantly, in our view) is the requiremen--lodged in the brains of many professor--that every incident in the world must be given a racial reading. Obama has struggled against that quite brilliantly. (It's a shame that he's had to do it. Just think of the other social problems this brilliant man might have solved.) But race men like Patterson have played this dumb card ever step of the way in the past four months. They've played this card inanely befor--but never as inanely as this.
Patterson saw a child asleep in an ad - and he 'could not help but think' of the Ku Klux Klan. He saw a mother in the middle of the night - and he 'couldn?t help but think' of Birth of a Nation. But when he fails to assess the things he can?t help but think, he produces deeply unintelligent work. When you're making our society?s most serious charge, you really can?t wait till the final paragraph to say that you might have it wrong."
I thought that the phrase in boldface summarises the use of the race card by the O people in this campaign.
Note that blogger Taylor Marsh specifically pointed out that the child in the ad is actually...black. (Mentioned in Wolcott's piece.)
MORE AT
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/blogs/wolcott/2008/03/now-that-everyb.htmlEdited to add link and comment!