viz.

There was a discussion of this cover on slate.com as well.

This comment is partially a response to this blog entry and partially to the one on the Obama magazine cover, and the question that is sort of being asked in these conversations about what constitutes racism or how we can engage in an ethical discussion of racism and the visual.

In my opinion, what matters more in conversations about racism (or sexism, gender bias, or homophobia) is not necessarily the determination made as a result of the conversation (something is or is not racist) but rather the process, the discussion itself. With regard to race: I think it is difficult to specify when something is an objectively racist image. In other words, any given image may be interpreted by some as racist and not so by others (although I do think there is a scale of intensity: hanging a noose on a professor's door, or in the branches of a "whites only" tree, does seem pretty objectively racist to me).

This image is a good example of that ambiguity. But if it strikes someone as racist, then there is value in listening to what they have to say about why they feel that way. In "The Uses of Anger: Women Responding to Racism," Audre Lorde writes, "The angers between women will not kill us if we can articulate them with precision, if we listen to the content of what is said with at least as much intensity as we defend ourselves against the manner of saying. When we turn from anger we turn from insight, saying we will accept only the designs already known, deadly and safely familiar."

No one in these blog posts is talking about anger, I know, but I do think Lorde is articulating something useful about the ethical dimension of our response to racist imagery. Discussions of racism often do lead people to feel uncomfortable, defensive, and sometimes angry, but her point is that the ethical choice is to engage and to listen to others in good faith.