The Injustices of Racial Entitlement

Brian McFadden's New York Times cartoon.  The cartoon can also be accessed here.

     During this past Wednesday’s Supreme Court hearing about The Voting Rights Act of 1965, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia attempted to argue that the South had surpassed the need for the law.  Scalia explained how the tremendous support the law received when it was up for reauthorization in 2006 could be attributed to “the perpetuation of racial entitlement,” as opposed to overwhelming support for the law.  In a New York Times Sunday Review strip cartoon, New York Times cartoonist Brian McFadden satirizes Scalia’s comment by revealing the many ways in which minority voters actually do have an unfair number of racial entitlements (compared to white voters).  The most striking device employed in this cartoon was humor, which effectively appealed to the audience and helped McFadden to make his point clear. 

     McFadden effectively expands upon Scalia’s ludicrous quote by using sarcasm to reinforce the racial entitlements given to minority voters.  Of course, McFadden means the opposite of what he says when he explains how minorities are granted more democracy because they can vote for longer periods of time; how their voting districts are gerrymandered for them; and how they are entitled to significantly more police attention than other people.  Twisting well known instances that actually verify continued racism towards minorities increases the contrast between what McFadden is saying and what he means, in turn strengthening his points.  This technique also employs cultural memory, as it forces the audience to subconsciously access what they know about the history of voting rights in America and the proliferation of racist and/or stereotypical comments in American media to subsequently increase their understanding of the cartoon.  Finally, the drawing style effectively mirrors the point of the cartoon.  The initial scene, showing Scalia reading a revised Huckleberry Finn to an audience of pastel-colored animals, sardonically mocks the not-so-light-and-fluffy issue of racial injustice.  In addition, the pictures heighten the ridiculousness of Scalia’s comment, as it portrays his real audience as animals, not people.

     This effective combination of words and images appeals well to McFadden’s audience of minority and liberal Americans, who would probably find the cartoon funny and valid.  It would also leave an impression on his audience of particularly conservative Americans, the viewpoints of whom the cartoon is expressly ridiculing.  Overall, the cartoon does fulfill its purpose of responding to an extreme comment in a humorous and memorable way.