When I saw the new Times Magazine headline, I did a quadruple take at it...because certainly there was no way that this would move forward as the headline for Time magazine's coverage of Obama's win:
Obama's Rout Rejiggers the Race:
To quote Jay-Z: J*gga What?
Now, it should be noted that the word "rejigger" itself is indeed a word, meaning to "readjust or reshuffle." But seriously, when I see "jigger" and "race" in the same sentence as the only black candidate in the presidential race, my black spidey senses go off!
Many people probably won't care about it much... like back in 1999 when David Howard (former aide to DC Mayor Anthony Williams) used "niggardly" among black constituents. It wasn't meant to be racial, nor was it racist, but it certainly played off the wrong way in a city that is rife with issues concerning race relations. Perhaps another word word have been fitting... like "stingy" perhaps?
But to be clear, the word jiggeralso has a very specific connotation as a racial epithet for black people with stereotypical "black physical features." Growing up down South, I've heard it used in the clearly racist terms. Truth be told, every now and again I heard the word used in more endearing, though misguided, terms: e.g. "You're my jiggaboo!" to which I said "No sweetie, I'm not... don't call me that again." But as with the N-bomb, you cannot remove the historical context of racism associated with the etymology of the word itself; the word carries some weight with it that should be considered whenever it is used.
My momma taught me to read between the lines with a critical eye and let's just say if I were the editor, that title would have never made it past my desk for publication...So when I saw "Obama's win rejiggers the race", I read between the lines and drew two very distinct conclusions: the literal and the subliminal.
- First the subliminal interpretation: Obama's win ensures the only black man running for president is again viable candidate again in the Democratic primaries after losing NV and NH. Rejigger in this case having the double entendre to suggest that Obama reshuffled the front-runner status as well as ensured a black candidate is again in contention. All of which is true, but hopefully this was not the message intended by saying the race itself was "re-jigged." That would be just tasteless and tacky, albeit clever in a distorted way.
- The literal interpretation: Obama's win over Clinton and Edwards in South Carolina reshuffles the Democratic Primaries as it again makes him a strong contender with momentum going into Super Tuesday.
So why didn't the Times just say the latter in those terms?
It's crazy enough that the media is hyping that the black vote is the basis for Obama's win, despite the fact the exit polls show his "rout" was across many demographics:
Even Pres. Bill Clinton played up the subliminal card (trademark on that term is pending) when he mentioned earlier today that Jesse Jackson won the SC vote in '84 and '88, suggesting the racial demographics would deliver the state to Obama. He said just enough to remind everyone subtly that Barack Obama is indeed a black man running for POTUS just like Jesse Jackson did, while withholding enough to claim he meant nothing but the best when he said it.
Would it be wrong to say "I'm just calling a spade a spade?" Of course, this is the sublime beauty of playing the subliminal card: It's just enough for plausible denials with just enough innuendo to suggest a racial double entendre.
So is this article contributing to the racialization of the Democratic primaries? Or maybe my spidey-senses are too sensitive to race-baiting dog whistles for my own better sensibilities. Or maybe, just maybe, the title had just enough racialiousness to be called for playing the subliminal card.
Just sayin'
UPDATE:
Say word... The Times actually CHANGED THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE?!?!
Now reads: Obama's Win Reshapes the Race
Who called that one?