The ugly portrayal of Barack and Michelle Obama with their heads on apes thankfully drew a swift bipartisan condemnation on Capitol Hill after an administration official brushed off criticism of it as a only a Lion King (though no apes appear in it) before it was removed, while those in charge showed little remorse or even gave much more than a gentle scolding to the video makers, not just the person who allegedly put it out on social media.
There’s a reason why linking political figures, or even regular people, to animals in an unmistakable negative connotation is a bad idea. It brings us back to a pre-Civil War level of animosity that led to disastrous consequences that nearly split our great country in two.
My grandfather gave me an American Heritage book on Andrew Jackson when I was young. I can vividly remember horrible cartoons from the 1820s and 1830s, only a few years removed from “the era of good feelings.” Jackson was depicted in a way that I can’t reprint, but the creature, and a play on his name, suggests where the Democratic Party gets its ‘mascot.’
I also saw Democrats portrayed as pigs. I saw members of the Whig Party portrayed as rats.
In another American Heritage book my folks got me at the Visitor’s Center for the Battle of Stones River in Tennessee, I read how Abraham Lincoln’s detractors depicted him as a baboon. I later learned why, based upon the people whose rights Lincoln was supporting, and ugly attacks on them.
Nor were non-politicians spared. I saw a pro-Jackson cartoon where the candidate was drawn up in full military regalia, and members of the newspapers were drawn as dogs. Jackson is addressing them as curs, in a way that clearly shows a difference in portrayal: the media were not being depicted as cute pooches.
When I wrote a recent column about the bipartisan condemnation of ICE tactics in Minneapolis, people posted crude depictions of me and my position, including one image with the rear of a horse and human lips and teeth coming out of it. Honestly, that bothered me far less than what happened to protesters in Minnesota before the column came out. It shows the level of crudeness a few are willing to employ and how bitter they must be towards the press and both parties.
It’s not just the depiction of the Obamas as apes, harkening back to clear racist portrayals. I remember seeing images from the Austro-Hungarian Empire of minorities (Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Slovenes) classified as different animals. It wasn’t long after that depiction before those minorities overthrew the once-powerful empire of Hapsburgs.
Condemnations of the video by Republicans and Democrats as well as wide numbers of America show we’re smart enough to figure out this is wrong.
By the same token, those who criticize Trump should not be portraying him in any sort of animal-like way. Those who have done so are just as wrong as those who went after the Obamas.
I received a video image of Trump’s face on the rear of an animal. I not only refused to share that image but also told that person how counterproductive such an artwork was.
Opposition to government policies will not be enhanced by crude, derogatory depictions of our President in animal form. Those artworks even undermine the very legitimate policy critiques. We should condemn this bad art, no matter who is being portrayed. While it may have been the norm of the pre-Civil War era, those images are clearly not what America should be about today.