11/17/24
May 27, 2010
The Latest Controversial Ballpark Giveaway: ...the Ryan Howard Garden Gnome. Sure to scare off all varmints in your garden, as well as offend the politically correct.
posted by TheQatarian to baseball at 02:06 PM - 25 comments
I was one of those 87.6%. I'd want one of these, along with my two favorite St. Paul Saints' giveaways: the Bud Selig tie (came out after the tie in the All-Star Game), and the Randy Moss hood ornament (after his incident with the Minneapolis traffic cop).
posted by TheQatarian at 02:35 PM on May 27, 2010
Is she implying that all garden gnomes should be white, to avoid offending people? Isn't that....racist?
posted by MeatSaber at 03:10 PM on May 27, 2010
Offend the politically correct? I would say it offends only those who have some interest in promoting controversy where none exists.
I never could understand the popularity of the lawn jockey statue. Most of them are placed at the side of the street. Do people have automobiles with braking systems so unreliable that the car needs to be tied up?
posted by Howard_T at 04:02 PM on May 27, 2010
I am terribly offended by this insult to garden gnomes everywhere.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 04:28 PM on May 27, 2010
I don't think black garden gnomes are offensive. Seems like a fun promotion to me.
posted by rcade at 04:30 PM on May 27, 2010
Er, well, it's hardly one of the standard racist caricatures.
That said, I can't imagine a person with sufficiently bad taste to actually put it on their lawn...or, I'd rather not know such a person, socially at least.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:51 PM on May 27, 2010
I think it is cute, but I hope people have a sense enough to at least google "lawn jockey" before they put it on their lawn.
posted by bperk at 04:59 PM on May 27, 2010
If one has a problem with garden gnomes, regardless of skin color, I supposed this might be offensive. However, since the writer is really just finding them offensive because they remind her of the lawn jockey I think she's making a bit of a stretch. (Many historians discount the underground railroad story, but some of the lawn jockeys were manufactured with exaggerated features that I would say are offensive).
If the gnome goes, I would guess that any bobble head doll of a black player is probably off limits too.
I think she needs to lighten up and have some fun.
TheQatarian, I missed both of those promotions, however I did get one of the Minnetonka Queen boats that made fun of the ill-fated MN Vikings boat trip. The Saints have some great promotions!
posted by dviking at 05:13 PM on May 27, 2010
I am not naive enough to think that racism is a thing of the past, but pointing out purported racism in places where there is clearly no intent is not the way to help that train down the track. I'm not sure if I would put the Ryan Howard gnome in my yard, but if I lived in the area, I would go to the ballpark that night to get one.
posted by bender at 10:27 PM on May 27, 2010
since the writer is really just finding them offensive because they remind her of the lawn jockey
Am I the only person who read the article and detected more than a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor in it? Those accusing the author of knee-jerking may be guilty of it themselves.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:42 AM on May 28, 2010
I am not naive enough to think that racism is a thing of the past, but pointing out purported racism in places where there is clearly no intent is not the way to help that train down the track.
Well, that is only true if you think most racism is intentional.
Am I the only person who read the article and detected more than a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor in it?
This article reminds me of the Lebron/Gisele photo. It has remnants of racism, even if it is unintentional. I wish people would read this and look up the histories of lawn jockeys and what message people were trying to send when they put them on their lawn instead of quickly dismissing the point the author was making.
posted by bperk at 11:04 AM on May 28, 2010
The racial connotations in Annie Leibovitz's LeBron/Gisele cover photo were intentional (self-link). There are too many visual comparisons between the photo and the "Destroy This Mad Brute" poster for it to be accidental.
posted by rcade at 11:15 AM on May 28, 2010
Well, plenty of people here during our discussion didn't see why that was a big deal either. Does it matter whether it is intentional or not?
posted by bperk at 12:37 PM on May 28, 2010
I think it matters a lot if a famous photographer asked an incredibly famous black athlete to pose like a ferocious ape kidnapping a white woman. Either James didn't know this and was tricked or he knowingly portrayed himself as an ape. Which one of those scenarios doesn't matter?
posted by rcade at 01:08 PM on May 28, 2010
I'd say they both matter in different ways, with some overlap.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:15 PM on May 28, 2010
I wish people would read this and look up the histories of lawn jockeys and what message people were trying to send when they put them on their lawn instead of quickly dismissing the point the author was making
I have, I did again, and I still somewhat dismiss the point she was making. As I stated in my prior post, some of the lawn jockeys were manufactured with very exaggerated facial features that I agree are insensitive to say the least. The problem comes in with the Undergroud railroad story. Many historians think the lawn jockeys with red or green ribbons is a fabricated story and not based in realitiy. Other signals were used to designate safe houses, and the whole "green means go...red means stop" mentality didn't come into existence until well after the slavery issue had been solved.
As to whether, or not, the reporter was writing utilizing tongue-in-cheek humor, I think she was clearly using humor at times, but racial humor is rarely a good idea. If she was merely being funny, she could have stopped exploring the lawn jockey angle when she said "this is starting to veer dangerously close to lawn ornament territory, and we all know that history". If we all know that history, why did she go into detail on how racist lawn ornaments can be? That's where she lost the tongue-in-cheek humor angle.
posted by dviking at 03:00 PM on May 28, 2010
As to whether, or not, the reporter was writing utilizing tongue-in-cheek humor, I think she was clearly using humor at times, but racial humor is rarely a good idea.
I didn't say racial humor. Where was she using racial humor?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:21 PM on May 28, 2010
I don't know. You could say that this is an equal opportunity gnome. All other garden gnomes have been white, so Ryan breaks the Gnome glass ceiling. I don't think it remotely looks like the Lawn Jockey personally.
As for the LebronGisele cover photo? I think the photographer knew damn well what she was doing when she took that shot. From the article: "Leibovitz, who has taken many other provocative photos in her storied career, is far too accomplished a photographer to have done this by accident."
I don't care what Leibovitz says, that picture is disgustingly racist, and brings up a lot of deep seated stereotypes.
posted by irunfromclones at 04:06 PM on May 28, 2010
Either James didn't know this and was tricked or he knowingly portrayed himself as an ape. Which one of those scenarios doesn't matter?
I didn't mean whether it matters whether that photo was intentional, but a more general question about whether intent of the creators matters when something is borderline (or not so borderline) racist. Suppose Liebovitz made more changes to the picture so it wasn't such an obvious depiction, but it certainly invoked the same image. Would that be okay?
posted by bperk at 04:31 PM on May 28, 2010
I think it's racially offensive to portray a black athlete as a hulking ape kidnapping a white woman, which is what Leibovitz did regardless of how much she might have downplayed the association with hypothetical changes. Though being intentionally provocative is one of her calling cards, that doesn't make the Jamest shot any less tasteless.
posted by rcade at 05:09 PM on May 28, 2010
llb, you referenced a line from a prior post that talked about how the writer found the gnome offensive because it reminded her of the (racially insensitive) lawn-jockey. Do you really think she ought to be making "tongue-in-cheek" humor about a racially charged topic? I can't get away with that. As I said, if she was joking, she should have stopped at just referencing the lawn-jockey. When she went into detail, she went beyond surface "tongue-in-cheek" humor.
She was obviously joking about a lot things, I just think she went too far, especially given that she may not have all of her facts straight.
posted by dviking at 11:32 PM on May 28, 2010
Which facts were incorrect?
posted by bperk at 08:35 PM on May 29, 2010
bperk, I was referring to the underground railroad connection...many historians discount the lawn jockey as a signal story...I also said "may not have her facts straight". My feeling is that if she's going to make a slavery connection, that her humor then goes past the tongue in cheek point, and that racially based humor is probably not a good idea.
posted by dviking at 02:18 AM on May 30, 2010
I don't think anything tops the Mariners' Cheezburger Night featuring the Happy Cat Bobblehead. If there was ever a reason to go to a Mariners game... this might just be it.
posted by evixir at 04:52 PM on May 30, 2010
Talk about attempting to find controversy where none exists. It is one large leap to get from garden gnome to the oppression of slavery. It would seem that people saw through this based on the 87.6% of the over 1600 votes already saying that there is nothing wrong with it.