Birther Conspiracists

In the presidential campaign in 2008, the “Birther” movement came to prominence by a staunch white population in opposition to Obama running for president. They believed that Obama was not born in the U.S and for that reason could not be qualified to run for president. Much of the emotions behind this movement came from a place of hate, not of partisan politics. This population felt that Obama could and should not become the president of the U.S because of the conviction that he was not born in the U.S. Behind this conviction, many agree that the real reason this position came to fruition was due to the color of his skin, and because of this racism, the movement charged abominable accusations of him being a muslim as well (as if that is supposed to automatically come with a negative connotation). In response to this movement, Obama released his birth certificate in 2008, (again, he had no legal reason to) in order to quiet these conspiracists and yet, the Birther movement carried on with their protests and harsh rhetoric against the president. It is unbelievable that even in 2010, two years after the release of his birth certificate, a poll revealed 25% of Americans to still have been in agreement of this exceptionally inappropriate claim. The main point of conflict with this assertion is that these conspiracists firmly believed that Obama was born in Kenya, Africa thus proving this movement’s deep racist relationship. As Ta-Nehisi Coates writes “it is impossible to miss the racism” when discussing the origins of much of the negative rhetoric against Obama. 25% of Americans feeling doubtful of Obama’s birth origin translates to 1/4 Americans most likely having a bias against the president stemming from a place that has to do with race.

Politician vs. Pundit?

In the image above, President Barack Obama shares a laugh and embrace with his Vice President Joe Biden. But are there really 1 and a half white men in the image above?

The mainstream perspective of Obama in the African American community has been one of warm embrace for the nation’s first black president. African Americans showed up in historic numbers to vote him in twice; rappers show him reverence in music; young black men cite him as a hero and near-demigod.

But there is another contingent. No, I’m not referring to the Ben Carsons and Herschel Walkers of the world– undeniably black men who nonetheless embrace conservative Republicanism. There is a segment of more liberally inclined individuals who tend to believe the image of Obama exceeds the greatness of the man himself.

In an essay entitled “My President was Black,” cultural philosopher Ta-Nehisi Coates initially presents a warm image of the Obama presidency. While Coates never switches to unabashedly derisive rhetoric, his tone quickly shifts to one of measured attack. Did Obama truly embody the black experience? How successful was the president in shining a light on the plight of his black brethren?

One issue some may point out with Coates’ offensive is Obama’s status as a political figure. Coates is a so-termed “public intellectual.” Obama was the President of the United States of America. Obama is bound by a code to which Coates need not answer. Concepts of race and the American experience must be handled ever so deftly by the aspiring politician. Could Obama’s tepidity be attributed to this? Was Coates still justified in his accusations? That may be for the reader and observer to decide.

Obama and Coates

Overall President Obama represented a change that the United States needed. This is because he was a man who, due to his blackness, represented a voice and presence of a minority in this country who were never given such a powerful voice. While his biography can be used to help and hurt his political agenda I think it is important to remember that this was a man fighting to be accepted by the American people. His biography like anyone else gives insight into who a person is, their character, philosophy, and morals.
While his biography according to Coates is not the ideal black experience. I would challenge Coates that he doesn’t know exactly what that is. Regardless of Obama’s whiteness, I am positive he was not defined by it, his witness did not provide him any of the privileges that it does the average white American. Who he is, his family, his agenda, personality, intelligence, and desires were decided for him because of his blackness. That is what Black Americans face when they leave their houses every morning to work or school, they encounter people who know absolutely nothing about them deciding that they do because of the color of their skin. So for a man interested in becoming the President of the United States, part of his challenge was being palatable enough that he could appeal to most of America and many of the same Americans who came out in unprecedented numbers to vote for Donald Trump.
I’m not saying that everything that this man has said or done is righteous, but there is a different battle that African Americans and monitories face to reach the same level of achievement than their white counterparts. Aside from criticism of his policies, Coates’ criticism of his persona is what I find most ridiculous. Obama was never a man who went for the shock value to be in the public eye or to find his relevance. I can understand the election of Donald Trump was a backlash to the Obama administration. The rejection of a decent human to someone so outlandishly problematic. While I may not agree with Trump’s policy, the blind faithfulness to a man with such a lack of character is horrifying. Trump’s election as response to the Obama administration is not necessarily the “problem” almost every election follows the same pattern; that I am not this other person, I don’t believe what they do, I do not do what they do, I do not think as they do, but the fact that the answer to Obama was such an atrocious man is what I find most shocking and unforgivable. Coates’ criticisms of Obama ignores that Obama’s demeanor was both a result of his upbringing and what is necessary for a Black man to be president. This image shows Obama as a fraud and while his policies have controversy they do not make negate his grace, intellect, and class.

Obama Poster

If iconography is based on the icon’s ability to propagate itself; Obama’s ambiguous campaign poster encapsulates this perfectly. I found a website that actually lets you embed any picture and create your own Obama poster with any picture you want. This shows how easily this icon is replicated, and that there is a market for doing so. Trump (or his supporters) have used this image and its perversion away from its original, positive message, to at once advertise their own message while also discounting the original message of the image. I also came across a copyright lawsuit of the Associated Press, who took the original image of Obama, against the artist who created the abstract image of the original poster, arguing that the rendition was not basis for fair use. Apparently, the image acquired $400,000 (I don’t know what this money was later used for), and this supports the idea that icons are profitable, the conversation shifts from what emotions the image is supposed to invoke, into an argument of who owns this image, even though it is Obama’s likeness and it should have been grounds for fair use. “The higher the chances that the resulting art constitutes a fair use of the original work.” I think this also plays into the fact that once an icon is profitable, this will change its message by naturehttps://www.wired.com/2011/01/hope-image-flap/.

• 

Race in President Obama’s First Term

This image appeared on the cover of the New Yorker on July 21, 2008, shortly before Americans elected Obama to his first term in office. The cartoon, drawn by artist Barry Blitt and put on the cover of the magazine by editor David Remnick, contains many of the racist stereotypes that those in opposition to Obama used to attempt to discredit him during the election. The Obamas’ clothing and the burning flag in the cartoon are based on the racist accusations that they were un-American and sought to destroy the American people. In response to widespread backlash against the racism inherent in the image, both the cartoonist and the editor insisted that the cartoon was not racist, but rather mocked the stereotypes that racists possessed about Obama. The lack of context provided in the image on the cover, however, negates this explanation and led many—including Republican candidate John McCain—to accuse the New Yorker of providing a platform for racist stereotypes.

In June of 2008, just a few months before the presidential election, it seems appalling that a major magazine would ignore legitimate political issues in order to portray a candidate in a racist light. The fact that the cartoonist, the editor, or any member of the New Yorker’s staff for that matter, failed to realize that this image would be problematic demonstrates how deeply entrenched race became for Obama’s political career even before his presidency began. The existence of this cartoon pushes back against Coates’ assertion that Obama failed to advocate for African Americans because he had an experientially based optimism in white Americans and white systems of power.

Coates’ argument unduly simplifies Obama’s personal history and undermines his intellect and political savvy. He does acknowledge moments when Obama advocated or issues that disproportionately impact African Americans—police brutality and health insurance, for example—but argues that Obama always diluted his policies to make them more palatable to white Americans because of his internal optimism. This cartoon reveals the deep entrenchment of racism in American institutions and demonstrates how quickly race became a central feature of Obama’s presidency

Obama’s Controversial Portrait

In 2018, the portrait above was released of former President Barack Obama. Obama chose the artist Kehinde Wiley to paint his portrait. Although the final product looks peaceful and pensive with greenery and flowers in the background, Wiley’s other paintings are much more provocative. The second painting is from Wiley’s collection titled “The Economy of Grace.” The collection depicts black women holding severed heads of white women. Wiley stated, “So much of the American mythos is the notion of the city on the hill– that we are a beacon of light for others to see our greatness, our social justice and equality. In the end though, there have been many moments in which we step back, examine ourselves, and police our own actions. We have a black president, and that is a sign of progress in many ways, but we still read newspapers everyweek about young black men because their bodies are in our street. ” We have talked about in class how Obama was often criticized for his lack of acknowledgement of raise and optimistic view of white America. However, this begs the question if Obama’s presidency made him lose some of this optimism as shown by his choice of artist for his portrait.

Personality, Elections, and the Onion

Also, I saw these tweets from the Onion (I am on Twitter probably more than I should be). They also reminded me of our class discussion. I believe Professor Simon said in class something like “policies might matter, but biographies might win.” It was in reference to Obama and his story, but then we discussed how it related to other candidates as well, particularly Pete Buttigieg. These tweets are playing off the fact that his “fun personality quirks” are what draws in voters more so than his policies or political stances. This is an alarming thing to consider that we put more stock in personality than politics, but there is a lot of truth to this statement and particularly since JFK, there has been a much stronger emphasis on personality and characteristics. In the last presidential election, there were people who voted for Trump because they liked his biography in big business and wealth and because they liked that he “spoke his mind.” It could be argued that all Trump voters based on personality and alignment with the values he talked about rather than policy since I don’t even remember Trump ever laying out a comprehensive plan for policy, so there may not have even been the option.

Maura Razanauskas

Obama and Twitter

I saw this tweet the other day and it, of course, directly related to our discussion about Obama. It is interesting because this person is commenting on just Obama’s hairline and is almost implying that a hairline that is not receded is the only depiction of youth. However, this twitter user doesn’t acknowledge the other ways Obama has aged, likely due to the stress of the position. Obama’s hair is gray and he looks much slimmer, even a bit gaunt. Also, the subtle smile in the first picture seems to have faded a bit in the second picture. This aging is likely due to the stressors Obama faced as well as the pressure to enact more race-based policies. Obama faced extreme racism and insults while he was in office, and seemed to be criticized from many angles. Criticism continued after he left office, but I noticed a difference in the way a lot of people talked about him. As we discussed in class, the election of Trump and life with Trump as president did spur a sense of nostalgia and longing for when Obama was in office for many people. I have noticed that certain people, especially on Twitter, have almost deified Obama. When he tweets, there are of course a ton of retweets and likes, but the comments under his tweets are very interesting. The majority of the tweets are in support of Obama and many say they miss Obama as president or echo that sentiment in some way. I saw a tweet that said a girl had a dream and in it, she met Obama and asked him to come back as president. One of the responses to his recent tweet says, “I miss you with every last fiber of my being, Mr. President.” However, some of these people did not show this same support for Obama when he was in office, but now that he is out, and likely because specifically Trump is in, these sentiments are being expressed. It is also worth noting that the responses to Hillary Clinton are not nearly as positive, even though she was the other possibility instead of Trump. I also think that this very public demonstration of desire for Obama as president is a way that people think they can “prove” they aren’t racist and they are progressive and liberal. Because if they are for Obama and despise Trump, they may think that the tweets are an expression of their personal beliefs. In some ways it is, but in other ways, it reminds me of people who like to claim that they aren’t racist because they have a black friend, but in this case, they can’t be racist because they miss the only black president we have had. However, some may only realize they miss him because some of their rights are being challenged with Trump as president. I am not sure that if Obama had more aggressively pushed a racial equality agenda that he would still be getting this response. But that may be just a pessimistic view.

Maura Razanauskas

Obama and Rolling Stone

Obama has been on the cover of many editions of Rolling Stone since he first announced his presidential candidacy. This cover is the second one he received, coming out July 10, 2008, months before the general election. This cover was especially striking to me, more so than his others, in that there is no text surrounding him, like you would normally find on a magazine cover. Often this type of image is used for figures that have already become iconic, yet Rolling Stones put out a no-name-needed image before the election. To me, this speaks to the power Obama’s campaign had and his iconicity just as a candidate; he was the first black person to ever receive a major party nomination, for either president or vice-president. It also tells us that there were likely very few people that would not immediately recognize him.

It is also important to look at Obama’s positioning and what the photo projects. The image looks casual, almost candid, as if he wasn’t posing for the cover of one of the most famous and widely circulated magazines. His smile is wide and has an air of authenticity that allows the public to connect with him on a more personal level. In contrast to what we have discussed in class, Obama is actually looking down, with his eyes nearly closed, once again suggesting a casualness and relatability that the intellectual Barack Obama had a more difficult time accessing.

Icons, Memes, and the Initial Parameter

On the first few days of class, an icon was defined as something that
“transgressed the parameters of its initial making”. With visual
icons, such as images of the Statue of Liberty or Fairey’s posters of Obama,
the internet has allowed them to be reproduced and modified at a speed faster
than perhaps any other type of icon, using nothing more than a hint of the
original icon to draw comparison. Although I’m sure there’s a “meme vs
icon” debate, it is the “initial parameter” of an image that is
reproduced over and over again, giving rise to the meme. These spin offs of
Shepard Fairey’s Hope poster use elements of the original: red, blue,
and tan colors, single syllable captions, as well as a single entity as the
focus of the image, to cause us to think of these images the same way we would
think of the Obama image: it gives a criticism of whether or not the phrase
(“Hope”) actually applies to the subject, it certainly applies a
political filter to the image, and (as with most political parodies) it causes
us to think much more frequently of the shortcomings and failures of the
subject rather than their successes. Very few parodies of this poster are to
commend Obama on his efforts or to present political platforms: rather, the
smug looking Donald Trump captioned “grope” effectively plays off the
original, certainly in a negative way.

The Trump version is effective, first off, because the Fairey format seems
to carry the connotation “presidential”. The original image of Obama,
politicized as it may be, was nothing short of a remarkably professional,
patriotic portrait of a president. To see DJT in the same colorings, grinning
over his famous “grab em by the P*ssy” quote, is a criticism of how
any president of the United States could survive having that quote behind them.
Furthering the criticism is the characteristic “I’m winning” smile on
Trump’s face, as opposed to the forward-looking gaze shown by Obama, as well as
a caption “Grope” to rhyme with “Hope”.

The second image shows am image of a chick with the caption
“chick”. This is an image where the icon has separated from its
initial meaning, and is showing something completely unrelated but is somehow seen
still through the same lens as the Obama poster. Chicks are not political,
divisive, or leaders of the free world , however this final image makes us
question: how much does the format itself matter to us? How deeply are we willing to dig for a deeper (likely political) meaning because of a poster format, even if there is none there?